FuelWagon
Click here to leave a message on my talk page
vandalism in progress
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:Articles for deletion
Add a new entry <== new entry for articles for deletion.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy {{subst:afd}}
wikipedia links
- The wikipedia Help page is here
- The wikipedia FAQ is here
- How to archive a talk page is explained here
- Wikipedia:Words to avoid Includes explanation of using "theory" and other words confused by editors.
NPOV Policy
- The NPOV policy appears to be the most misunderstood policy. Here are some good excerpts:
- "fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." [2]
- "unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." [3]
- "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," [4]
- "Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [5]
- "the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" [6]
- Pseudoscience: "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" "explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." [7]
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)
"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed.--ghost 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- (ghost's comment in reponse to SlimVirgin withdrawing from mediation: [8] Revision as of 03:15, 20 July 2005 SlimVirgin "removed my name; it's too silly".)
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)
Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block
More archives [9].
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 for the Barnstar, you big sexy pimp. Proto t c 09:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Mahalo for the barnstar. Your dedication on Terri Schiavo and weathering of the various conflicts is commendable. Aloha nui loa. --Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Gordon has agreed to two edits per day (only one revert) and five talk posts of no more than fifty words--so long as it applies to everyone. I have agreed and thought you would as well knowing you won't have to clip Gordon's edits more than twice a day. Marskell 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I have started to compile a series of notes around the intelligent design article here. FuelWagon 20:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I started an ID Wikiproject a few months ago. Not sure if you're interested in merging material or just use it to add other links to your page. David Bergan 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
scientific method url
A good url, short, sweet, and to the point FuelWagon 19:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This has me a bit flummoxed. He has not been "pushing the scientific point of view", but he has not edited since his comments in the RfC. Taken his bat and ball and gone home? Removal of the RfC might be seen as backing down from the NPOV position. But then, perhaps DotSix has made me too cynical. I'll think on it.
Banno 08:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Dispute
FuelWagon, I'm writing to put you on notice that if you continue (what I see as) your campaign of harassment against me, and the recent wikistalking, I will file an RfAr against you. You've insulted me on several talk pages, and seem to do so whenever there's the slightest passing opportunity. You're maintaining an attack page about me. You're following me to articles you've never edited before within minutes of my making an edit, and reverting me. As you know, in order for a case to be accepted by the arbcom, there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution. I consider the RfC you filed against me, and the exchange of e-mails that I initiated, as fulfilling that requirement, though of course if you have further suggestions, or want to try again, I'll be happy to work with you. I don't want to file a case with the arbcom, because it will mean a lot of work for both of us, but I will do so unless this stops. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I will reply to any question on my own talk page. Marskell 12:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC (it huffs and it puffs...)
...but it doesn't really do anything. I've commented on your RfC, and I think adaquately descriped my involvement and it's occured to me that RfC's of this sort really accomplish little. No, I didn't come down on your side but I think I was still fair and sat wondering "well, where the fuck will this lead except for creating an archive for future animosity." A lot of instruction creep with no actual dispute resolution mechanism. So I was wondering (partly for the sake of experiment as much as this particular dispute) if you'd agree to a series of yes/no's. First might be:
"Yes or no: SlimVirgin should have looked to talk before attempting a major edit with a controversy tag in place." And she answers.
"Yes or no: FuelWagon should apologize without qualification for his swearing at her whatever the content of the edits." And you answer.
And so on.
Now (much as this can't be absolutely absolutely enforced) the trick would be you'd be limited to, say, thirty words of response. And, un-wiki as it may be, third parties, outside of mediators (say me and Hipocrite, because I think we're the only two non-gang-ups) would be actively discouraged from commenting. We could set aside a page for it. A template for a new type of RfC if you like. Don't know if it will accomplish anything, but I am quite sure your RfC as it stands won't accomplish anything. It will accrue a bit more comment and then sit for three weeks.
What do you think? And please, comment toward this idea not toward SlimVirgin etc. Marskell 23:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
See RfM
See WP:RFM and comment on the mediator assigned. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: barnstar
- From my page, you wrote:
Gordon, I don't know how I missed it, but I just noticed you gave me a barnstar. I guess I need to watch my user page more closely. Sorry for the delayed response. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar. FuelWagon 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- And I replied briefly to the effect:
- You're welcome: As Ann always says, you can put your own user page on your watchlist.--GordonWatts 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The RfC against me is located here. FuelWagon 23:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Truth in Wikipedia articles
From the section Verifiability, not truth at Wikipedia:Verifiability: Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you? WAS 4.250 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC
Did you have any questions for me, Marskell? OK, a couple. As I often say, brevity please...
Is it more important to you that Slim acknowledges what you perceive to be mistakes or is it more important that the conflict be gotten past, however achieved? Secondary to this, how could you not interpret Slim's e-mails as reaching out and why did you not reach back?
Will you admit that you followed Slim's contributions and reverted because you were annoyed? I'm not concerned about the content of the edits on this one—following somebody repeatedly and reverting is actually rather unsettling for the receiver.
If you're willing to admit you lost your cool why can't you admit it to her frankly (even on her talk for instance)? Specifically, why can you not offer an unqualified apology for your swearing? Note, "she hasn't done the same" is the ten-year old answer on this one. In terms of actual words written she has not gone as low as you.
All for the moment. Marskell 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I had a long-winded follow-up point with yet another suggested compromise, but I grow weary and have removed it as it won't work. I don't know what will. I leave you with: think not of previous details but of end-points. Really, probably the best advice is the following: bite the bullet and offer just a few sentences. "We're wasting time on this (we really are). I'll leave her be and try to keep my cool in future. I'll move the pages to Word. I expect her to leave me be as well, of course. I will continue to edit in good faith and will avoid attacks in summaries and on Talk." End of story. Marskell 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Some troll stole your password
Hey, I see goethean, a POV pusher I butted heads with on the Intelligent design article, just endorsed this RfC. Nice snowball effect here. was put at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. I suggest you delete it or the troll that stole your password makes it look like you are simply proving their point for them. WAS 4.250 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- replied on your talk page. FuelWagon 01:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Veganism
In response to your questions about the pov issues on the vegan page... [A] philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals ...
+ :therefore, eating meat is exploitation and cruel?
Yes, the overwhelming majority of meat in the us is produced using factory farming is cruel and all meat eating is exploitation. Isnt the very definition of explotation taking advantage of someone (something) with no concern for the object you are using?
some vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals, such as circuses featuring animals, and zoos.
+ :circuses and zoos might have a point of view to report here
All vegans refrain from supporting circuses which use animals because they are poorly treated (abused) in training, and live horrible lives in cages without a chance to lead any semblance of a normal life. This is not to say we do not support any zoos only those that use animals.
The other points you made were good ones. I tried to post this in response to your questions but i could not seem to figure out how to. I am somewhat new to wikipedia and i am not very familiar with many of its aspects but thank you for all your hard work. Steven
(the above post by User:Baumstev on 16:58, 26 October 2005)
Hey FuelWagon,
Hope I'm not too late. Hadn't checked in for a week or so. Anyway, I made a comment on the RFC. Not being familiar with the specifics and not really wanting to wade through the whole gory thing, I gave you a character reference based on my experience with you. Your edits and discussion have always been reasonable. Hope it all blows over. Synaptidude 01:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism reports
Thanks for all the vandalism reports over at WP:VIP! Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Stupid bread squabbles
Hi Fuel. Word of advice - just let the word 'host' be used. As long as it's wikilinked correctly, there's no problem. There isn't a need to put an explanation in parenthesis. Those who are curious, and unable to garner the meaning of 'host' from the context can just click on it. That's what the wikilinks are for. There are bigger issues with the article than the use of this one word, and given the sensibilities of some of the more religious contributors, maybe it would be best to let this one slide. I can't make your choice for you, though. Proto t c 13:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Accidental revert
I accidently reverted your recent additions, when fixing the copy/paste error... Please put it back in. --Comaze 00:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
NLP
The pseudoscience part is OK. But the other criticism does seem a bit much for the intro so I removed it. I am trying to make comprimises, but you could revert them if you wanted :-).Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
3RR
You appear to have violated 3RR at your RfC page. You may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're really out of order now. You're deleting other people's comments, which you have no business touching, but you're leaving your own. And you've violated 3RR, even though you know it applies regardless of the content dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism. Just as I begin to think you might have stopped your nonsense, you invariably start up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- You've now reverted the page 6 times in 24 hours - I strongly recommend you revert yourself. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. Feel free to come back when the block expires. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- It should be flattering to you, FuelWagon, that people can only resort to blocks because they cannot defeat you with facts, reason and logic. --Vizcarra 00:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I won't be surprised if SlimVirgin and Jayjg, the tag teamming meatpuppets who violated RfC procedures (and knew they were violating RfC procedure), will go unscathed. I get blocked for reverting their violations of RfC procedures. But I'm sure they will be above policy and procedure requirements. They're admins, of course, long term admins, and so policy and procedures don't apply to them. Oh well, wikipedia lesson has been learned: It's a one-way street around here. FuelWagon 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's getting better as wikipedia grows. More and more are aware of their behavior and Jayjg was warned about edit wars (which did nothing in this case because 3-reverts by Jayjg and 3-reverts by SlimVirgin can make anyone violated WP:3R). Just don't get discouraged, I know you have a lot to contribute. --Vizcarra 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I was going to block you as well for violating the 3RR, but Redwolf beat me to it. It's really nothing personal - you do the crime, you do the time. Nobody's above the rules. I'd have blocked Jayjg if he'd violated the 3RR, but he didn't. You did. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- And when Jayjg and SlimVirgin did the crime of breaking RfC procedures, what sort of "time" will they do? None, no doubt, because they're admins. They were the main campaigners on the RfC against me. They started inserted a bunch of threaded comments on the RfC in areas that were clearly against procedure. I moved their comments to talk as per procedure. They put them back in. Because the two of them worked together to break procedure, they avoid breaking 3RR. But that doesn't mean they didn't break procedure and abuse the RfC system. Note to self, prepare for the onslaught of excuses. FuelWagon 03:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, all you need is a sidekick to split 3 reverts among 2 people. People can play the rules and still edit-war. Even though the purpose of the 3RR rules is to avoid them. --Vizcarra 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
3RR
Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 03:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- by all means. While you're at it, how about some administration overview into how SlimVirgin and Jayjg abused the RfC system and broke RfC procedures. That's what I was reverting. No? Not surprising. Procedures and policies don't apply to admins. FuelWagon 03:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note to self: Procedures and policies are only enforced when it is convenient to those who want them enforced. The same procedures and policies become optional and subject to loose interpretation when the administrators don't follow them. FuelWagon 04:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Further note to self: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." This of course doesn't mean multiple parties violated multiple rules, just the rules we want to enforce. If some editors violate one rule and another editor violates 3RR to enforce the first rule, then by all means, just block the editor who violated 3RR, especially if the other editors are admins. That's what the rules say, after all. FuelWagon 04:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Since I'm blocked, could someone report Jayjg for deliberate vandalism on an RfC and request a 24 hour block for him? On 14:59, 3 November 2005 Jayjg removes my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment. This qualifies as vandalism. Now, will wikipedia rules be evenly enforced? or will Jayjg somehow get an "exclusion" for his vandalism while I get blocked for 3RR? Just how fairly are wikipedia rules enforced? Let's wait and find out. FuelWagon 04:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This was the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2 RfC filed against me by SlimVirgin, Jayjg and cabal. Jayjg attempted to remove my endorsement of an outside comment by Vizcarra. That Vizcarra was critical of the RfC against me and the people who filed it, that Vizcarra was supportive of me, likely had everything to do with the fact that Jayjg attempted to slip this over to the talk page. I await the spin machine to tell me why Jayjg is excluded from his removal of my endorsement from being labeled the simple vandalism that it is. FuelWagon 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was the same comment you had inserted a number of times before, was not numbered as an endorsement, and started with "Just a note to point out etc."; I removed your comment, just as you removed other comments. Oh, and I have not filed any RfC against you - in fact, Carbonite filed the RfC against you. I'm not even an endorser of the RfC. It no longer astonishes me that you try to get away this this kind of spin, but it still surprises me that you think others will be fooled by it. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was the same comment you had inserted a number of times before, Wrong, the history is shown below. I NEVER moved ANY comments from the talk page to teh article page, except for this endorsement. And I only did that ONCE.
- was not numbered as an endorsement, Sure, and the last sentence that says "I endorse" was... what exactly? A declaration of non-endorsement?
- and started with "Just a note to point out etc."; Yeah, just a note to point out the only thing that I did not endorse about Vizcarra's comment. I endorsed everything else about his comment.
- I removed your comment, just as you removed other comments. No, you removed my endorsement. I removed threaded comments that were combative or disagreeing with whatever the previous statement was. I agreed with Vizcarra, I endorsed his comment. But you remove my endorsement. SlimVirgin disagreed with my comment, she disagreed with Vizcarra's comment, and you reinserted that comment.
- It no longer astonishes me that you try to get away this this kind of spin, but it still surprises me that you think others will be fooled by it. It no longer surprises me that you violate RfC procedures with impunity, directly violating the requirement to keep threaded comments on the talk page. It no longer surprises me that you vandalized the RfC against me by removing an endorsement to talk page, yet are enough of an old-timer that vandalism rules won't be applied to you. It no longer surprises me that you would put so much spin on your own defense that youd blatantly lie by saying it was "the same comment you had inserted a number of times before" when the edit history below clearly shows your lie, that you blatantly lie saying "I'm not even an endorser of the RfC" when the links show you first tried to certify this RfC and are now the number 1 endorser. And it no longer surprises me that in spite of these blatant lies with diffs to prove you are the one lying here, you have the gall to say I am the one putting the spin on things. FuelWagon 06:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
edit war, vandalism
Not that I expect that anything would be done to SlimVirgin or Jayjg as they are immune to policy and procedures, but here's the short history of the edit war.
RfC procedures state: "All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page."
Bishonen starts enforcing this procedure when Zen master posts a threaded comment that Bishonen didn't like.
21:17, 26 October 2005 Bishonen moves a threaded comment by Zen Master from the RfC page to the talk page. .
I follow suit and enforce the procedure on a threaded comment I find to be inappropriate.
21:21, 26 October 2005 I move a threaded comment by SlimVirgin from the RfC page to the talk page as per the same RfC procedure.
04:38, 2 November 2005 I move another threaded comment by SlimVirgin to talk
19:40, 2 November 2005 SlimVirgin's meatpuppet and revert buddy, Jayjg, reinserts the threaded comment in violation of RfC procedures. (first revert by Jayjg)
02:56, 3 November 2005 I move the threaded comment to talk .
03:02, 3 November 2005 I move another threaded comment to talk .
03:14, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts the threaded comments, in direct violation of procedures.
03:23, 3 November 2005 I move comments to talk as per RfC procedure.
03:24, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts the same threaded comments, in direct violation of RfC procedures.
03:28, 3 November 2005 I move comments to talk as per RfC procedures .
03:29, 3 November 2005 I move another block of comments to talk as per RfC procedure.
03:32, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts a threaded comment back into the RfC, in direct violation of RfC procedures.
03:36, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts more threaded comments in direct violation of RfC procedures.
03:38, 3 November 2005 I move threaded comments to talk as per RfC procedures .
14:59, 3 November 2005 Jayjg removes my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment. This qualifies as vandalism. .
17:34, 3 November 2005 I reinsert my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment. Since I am reverting Jayjg's previous vandalism, this should not count for 3RR.
17:55, 3 November 2005 Jayjg reinserts SlimVirgin's threaded comment, in direct violation of RfC procedures. .
18:10, 3 November 2005 I move SlimVirgin's threaded comment to talk as per RfC procedures.