User talk:FuelWagon

vandalism

click here to report vandalism in progress [[1]] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.

wikipedia links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

Terri Schiavo

You have the patience of a saint, my friend. You're an inspiration. I have a far lower frustration threshhold than you apparently do. Keep up the good work. --AStanhope 21:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon, for reformatting my Let's go sentence by sentence post. Given the size the talk page now is, that'll sure make any contributions easier for the users. Duckecho 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

The request for mediation on the Terri Schiavo article is here.

I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please meet me at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave

RFC on NCdave

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Editor comments on NCdave

I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the future, refrain from deleting my comments. --goethean ॐ 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option

I'm sorry to say the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor (beginning around May 12). It is confusing, and it seems to intentionally obscure the basic facts of the maneuver. --CSTAR 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll take a look at it. I found some good stuff on the reaction to "THE DEAL" made on Monday, and I'll add it at some point. Dave (talk) 04:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, double-checking before I jump in. Did you get my response? Is the invite still open, or should we discuss it further?--ghost 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FW, "I'm goin in Maverick..."--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block

Note from Neurosurgeon

Fuel, I awarded you something I feel you deserve. In re the current block, I hope it's not permanent, and I also hope you don't take things too much to heart. This is only an online encyclopaedia and community, after all. All the best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and dude. You gotta tone down the cussin. Lol.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. FuelWagon 06:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed asks "Why are you here?"

One word of advice. To participate in a volunteer project, you have to be more concerned with making the project succeed, than you are about "being treated fairly". In my 3 1/2 years at Wikipedia, I've never been blocked.

When others disagree with my edits, I've argued, debated, made points, tried different formulations, etc. But I haven't attacked other users of this web site.

I have not been overly stubborn about versions of articles, because I have no particular axe to grind. All I care about is the neutrality of this encyclopedia. So, if an article presents a point of view, which I disagree with, in a favorable light, I don't care, as long as sufficient mention is made of other point of view.

The whole country (Amercia) was upset about Terry Schiavo's situation, and she's only one person. Did you know that there are millions of people who die each year from starvation and easily preventable diseases? Do you know how many people have been murdered by their own governments? I have the good fortune to have been born in a country whose government is literally "for the people" (in Abraham Lincoln's words) rather than for the benefit of the ruling class. And this government sponsored the creation of the Internet, which you and I are now using to communicate with each other and share our knowledge with the world.

I personally asked the programmers who created the MediaWiki software to give blocked users the ability to edit their own talk page, just so that a block wouldn't be so hard on them. Please use this time to tell the Administrators of this web site what contributions you plan to make to this encyclopedia. Uncle Ed 10:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

page lock

I went to a lot of effort to keep this page open for you, but you have not said anything about how you intend to help this project. You just continued making personal remarks about others. So I moved everything to the /block subpage and locked this page. Uncle Ed 20:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Page is unlocked, block has expired. Please let others know how you plan to contribute to Wikipedia. Uncle Ed 14:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

What IS this epidemic of arrogance?? Slimvigin demands, in effect, the right to not have her edits edited, insists nothing she does is a mistake, and everyone else is neglecting the unending pool of obvious things she will now in her infinite wisdom and perfection fix. She and Gordon conspire together resulting in Gordon's biased scoring of the encounter as if he were neutral (saying on her talk page "the cavalry [Gordon] is coming" to help her. Ed poor demands you, an unpaid volunteer, satisfy him et. al. as to your future plans to contribute to Wikipedia. What unmittigaed gall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are they trying to egg you on with their bizarre arrogance? Anyway, the rest of us see the bull you had to put up with, and neuroscientist spelled out the actual situation chapter and verse (with slimvirgin still acting like she did no wrong ... has she gone insane? maybe she has a tumor. This is so utterly unlike past edits of hers I've seen. Then again, maybe someone she knows (boyfriend?) is using her account? It's all so totally bizarre.

Anyway, welcome back. 4.250.27.50 18:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

FW, I owe you an apology. I'm sorry that allowed my personal life drag so much of my attention away. Please don't give up, and please let me know if I can help. I know that you cross that line from time to time. But I accept that as part of how we "push the envelope". Other's don't accept it at all.--ghost 20:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

RC/JG

You won't be getting anything from JG for a while, you know: [2]. William M. Connolley 22:44:25, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Thanks, I didn't know. I simply posted to everyone who made an edit in the last 500 edits of the page in question. I think that's how I'm supposed to do it. FuelWagon 22:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would just have put a note on the bottom of the page in question. William M. Connolley 10:39:19, 2005-07-15 (UTC).

user:SlimVirgin

er, if we're still on speaking terms, may i tip toe in for a minute?

You wrote (on the rfc):

However, having served my time, SlimVirgin is still insisting on inserting her edit, is still accusing editors of "owning the page", is still responding to all criticism as violating "No Personal Attack" and is still unwilling to concede there are any problems with the facts in her edit. FuelWagon 22:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at this yet, but if it's true, then, well, by golly, I'll have to do something about it, won't I? I can tell you right off the bat that labelling all criticism as personal attacks is highly unlikely to be defensible.

And now I'll go take a look. (Golly, what a tangle this all is!) Uncle Ed 00:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

polite

You wrote:

There seems to be no imperative coming from Wikipedia to "Bear No False Witness" against fellow editors, to "Honor your word", or to "Edit With Integrity".

Being polite is objectively verifyable, costs nothing, and is a great help in promoting the difficult to objectively verify but valuable goals you listed. You'll be pleased to know that your new skills in politness will serve you well in your other endevors with us humans. Harsh language has a way of preventing the other person from hearing anything else we say. Slimvirgin is currently deaf when it comes to hearing anything critisizing her edits or her attitude or her judgement. Harsh words didn't help, but there is something else causing this deafness that can only be guessed at across the abyss of virtualness. One more thing. Try being OVERPOLITE. Sarcasm is allowed. Cheers. 4.250.33.21 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

False accusations

I don't like the idea of kicking someone when he's down, so while you were blocked, I refrained from commenting on the language and behaviour which had led to the block. I felt it would be ungenerous, and that it would be better to move on. (Of course, I was also busy.) However, since you have now filed an RfC, instead of moving on, I feel I should point out the following:

On 5 May, you added a spurious accusation to an old RfC against another user, with whom had been in constant dispute [3]. You accused this user of editing anonymously. It was discussed on the talk page, and the other user acknowledged that the IP address and edit were his, and that he occasionally got logged off without realizing it. (He had in the past acknowledged an IP edit as his, without being asked.) I haven't got diffs, but the discussion is here, at the bottom of that particular section. You accepted that it was an accidental logoff, but, amazingly, you did not go back to the RfC to remove your false accusation. You have visited the page on several occasions since then, to add other accusations, but the false one still stands. I pointed this out to you on 24 June [4] and you still did nothing to remove your false accusation. You added to his own userpage last night that if you make a false accusation against another editor you apologize, and if you misquotes someone, you admit your mistake and straightens it out. [5] If that is so, why is the false accusation still on that RfC page after the discussion on the Terri Schiavo talk page, and after I pointed this out on the mediation page? (And you responded, so you must have seen it.)

The fact that you have made no attempt to remove a false accusation you made - and which has been brought to your attention - raises questions about the credibility of your recent statement on your user page. FuelWagon, you need to remove that false accusation from that page before you go filing any new accusations against any editors. Please do so today, as a sign of your integrity. Ann Heneghan 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the accusation. Yes, it was NCdave who made that edit, when logged off, and he did acknowledge it when it came up on the talk page. Ann Heneghan 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

FW, if I may once again tread on your talk page - by the way, we need to consolidate all this talk, we are making great progress airing all this out - the whole concept of accusation needs re-examination here. I have personally found in a quarter-century career of trying to "get work done through others" that accusing is hardly ever as effective as requesting. When I've taught 12-step group interaction, one of the first things is the I statement. Essentially, instead of heaping blame on a person and endeavoring to make them "feel bad", I just say how I feel and aske them to try something different (optionally, I specify this).

Like, "When you revert all my edits 3 times a day, I feel stupid and unwelcome. Please do partial reversions and discuss each one with me on the talk page." Or, "I'm really ticked off. I don't feel heard. I would like to get some feedback on what I wrote."

Note that none of this is an accusation. I haven't blamed anyone, and I'm certainly not building a case to get them fired. I'm telling it like it is (from my POV, actually) and simply asking my friends for favors! :-) Uncle Ed 12:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)