In case I disappear in the middle of the night, see this

or

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor

Static information[edit]

vandalism in progress[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Wikipedia:Flat earth problem

NPOV Policy[edit]

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]

Terri Schiavo[edit]

"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)[reply]

(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".)

Fox1

Mia-Cle

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

More archives [9].

Intelligent Design[edit]

I have started to compile a series of notes around the intelligent design article here. FuelWagon 20:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

I acknowledge you for the clarity you have brought to the troublesome Landmark Education article. There has been more progress on that page in the last two days or so than in the whole of the last year and a half that I have been observing and sometimes editing it. No doubt there will be more edit battles to come, but we now have a clear structure and clear guidlines on what it takes to meet the NPOV and Citation of Sources policies.DaveApter 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, congratulations. I've been watching this article for months and have despaired for its future. You've made a significant improvement. Thanks for your careful work on this obscure and sensitive topic. -Willmcw 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish[edit]

I expect to be banned soon as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor. If that happens, don't bother posting messages to me here, since arbcom is proposing a minimum six months for a ban. There isn't much point checking my talk page if I can't reply for half a year. Feel free to use the "E-mail this user" link on the left, or click here, and maybe it'll work. Don't expect a reply soon, because there isn't much incentive to check my email either. So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish. FuelWagon 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Ghost speaks[edit]

This is a copy of the email I sent Fuel after I heard of the ruling against him and Ed Poor.

Fuel,

I'm so sorry. I feel like I let you down. And I consider you a friend.

For what it's worth, I never left because of the bullshit. I left because my job started demanding all my energy, other than what I refused to take from my family. But I feel like in doing so, particularly when you reached out to me, I failed you. I wish that I had been able to give you more.

*deep cleansing breath*

In spite of the crap, I pray that you won't let this tear you down. In spite of all the rancor, you are a quality writer and copy editor. In fact, I think so highly of your skills, I'd be glad to give you a personal reference on request.

You and I are both passionate idealists. The world needs that. Unfortunately, when you force your will on the world around you, the world around you has a nasty tendency to push back. I've been hurt by that before, and I hope this hasn't hurt you too badly.

May the Universe smile on you, always. And I hope you use the Holidays to spend some of that inner fire on yourself, you deserve it.

Bright Blessings, Happiest Yule and Merry Christmas,

Ghost

Wikipedia failed this User. Not the format, but the Wikipedia community. If you agreed with him, you may see a Cabal of Admins lording over the project. If you disagreed, you may see one bad User. Neither view is correct. Fuelwagon (and Ed) is an architype of the well-meaning, passionate User that loses their way. It is the responsability of the community to not let this happen, and we did. Thus we failed. I pray we learn to do better. For the project to succeed in the long-term, we must.--ghost 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia did not fail this user. Everything I've seen of his indicates that he was a vandal who did his best to incite flamewars. Interested2 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reachead a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. Raul654 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I instituted the 6 month block as per the arbcom ruling's ban on you editing, I hope after the ban expires you will consider coming back to contribute. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember that upon your return, you are allowed only one revert per article per week. Excess reverts carry blocks of up to 24 hours. 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similar case to yours[edit]

I note that there is a similar case to yours against User:Marsden, but without the ArbCom. And there is a third case which I have documented in detail here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Note that all 3 cases involve basically the same people. I thought that you might find it, well, interesting. There may even be some way to combine the 3, plus some others if we can find them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design FAR[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design[edit]

The Intelligent design article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of edits to this page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]