Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

United States: West Virginia Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject West Virginia.

I feel that this article is quite relevant, especially because of the gravity of this historic disaster and Mr. McCloy's role in it. If we delete this article, I vote that we delete the articles on Jessica Lynch and other people who have become famous out of adversity caused by a disaster or accident of some type. --Caponer 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much connection with Jessica Lynch who was a female Army POW in a controversial war. While the level of fame accorded her may have been overblown, her circumstances weren't the result of an accident or disaster of some type. Are there Wiki pages for all the accidental survivors of, say, plane crashes, earthquakes or hurricanes? (though Hardy Jackson did make it). Unless they happened to go on to write books or have movies made about them or become media figures in some other way, I'm not sure an article is warranted (again, see Hardy Jackson) If McCloy chooses, he may get out of the hospital, go home to his wife and kids and fade away until the People magazine 10 Year's Later "Where are they now?" article comes out. Crunch 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs to be deleted; a brief mention of him in the main article about the coal mining incident is all he needs. If he goes on to write a book about it or something, then we can consider putting him back up, but until then he just isn't important enough. This isn't really a "historic" disaster either; coal mining accidents happen none-too-infrequently. 69.59.212.172

• If the over-reported story of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway can get an article, then this should too. Being a lone survivor of a disaster that is has been reported nationally (and somewhat internationally) is enough to me. I'm guessing he will be making the talk show rounds eventually. Let this stay and accumulate info. Kalmia 01:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Natalee Holloway incident involvement involved a crime, not a natural disaster. I don't see the connection. Crunch 08:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as he is being reported internationally (in Canada at least) this article warrants inclusion in wikipedia. Baiter

Keep for now. It is complicated. Holon67 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you just love politics? Ie, decision making? Regardless, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT Holon67 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps adding McCoy's Amateur Radio Call Sign to this article. Assuming this is even accurate, and it's not backed up by a verifiable source, it's not encyclopedic information. It's a trivial piece of information, much like his phone number or his email address. It does not belong in this article any more than those pieces of information do. Crunch 18:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I added it once, probably another ham radio operator added it this second time. Amateur radio callsigns are considered more sigificant than a phone number or an e-mail, as they are tied to the individual by the federal gov't and act as a sort of fraternity of radio operators. Even the Walter Cronkite article here contains the fact that he was a ham radio operator and lists his callsign.

Also for verification:

• The ARRL Letter
• fcc.gov

That being said, I have no desire to make an issue out of it. Just a clarification. -Vees

Walter Cronkite is one of, maybe the, most famous broadcasters of the 20th century on radio and television. Being an amateur radio operator is significant in the context of what makes him notable. According to the Walter Cronkite article he is narrated a program, also notable, on the Amateur Radio. So that's one of the most notable broadcasters of our time, broadcasting on Amateur Radio. That's complete different than an average guy who is only notable for surviving a coal mine explosion being an Amateur Radio operator. If McCloy broadcasts a program about the coal mine explosion that would be a different thing. Until then it's not at all notable. Crunch 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the list of articles with callsigns (Bruce Perens, Barry Goldwater, Steve Wozniak, Maximilian Kolbe, Hussein of Jordan, Bob Tomalski, Joe Walsh, Loyd Sigmon, Jean Shepherd) is largely radio personalities or technophiles, there are dozens more that list amateur radio as a hobby of notable figures. A agree that it is a stretch to know whether he actually enjoys it as a hobby and is independently verifiable, so we'll wait until he recovers to know for sure. If he takes it up after the glut of get well cards from ham radio operators he is mostly likely receiving right now, perhaps we could revisit the issue? I should says that the ham radio community is passing around news and information about him as if he were a brother and he features in on-air discussions regularly. --Vees 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At this point, McCloy is lying in a coma and is notable only for events surrounding that fact, sadly. If/when he recovers enough to resume his hobbies, I imagine the article would undergo some major rewriting to include what his life would then be like. Crunch 12:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree, it is wrong to keep the information about him being an Amateur Radio operator out of the article. Amateur Radio Callsigns are government issued titles (that can and are used behind someone's name such as Randall McCloy, Jr., KC8VKZ.) and besides, why does the article need to be about nothing but negativity? Whether he enjoys the hobby or not is irrelevant. He put in the hours of studying the material to earn an Amateur Radio License. It looks like there is only one person that cares to not have it listed. I think we should revisit this in a few days and see how the consenses is. This is an article about a person with real hobbies and interests other than being in the hospital. "It's a trivial piece of information" is an extremely offensive statement.

Another Source is: QRZ.com

First of all, please sign your posts, by typing for tildes (the squiggle marks). Secondly, the term "trivial" is not meant to be offensive at all. It is one of the benchmarks that separates information from being encylopedic and appropriate for Wikipedia and minor or just merely interesting and not meant for Wikipedia. Third, Wikipedia has a policy against publishing personal contact information in biographies. I know this includes email addresses and phone numbers, even if they are government issued, as many email addresses are (e.g., .gov addresses). I'm not sure if this extends to publishing amateur radio call signs. No one is saying the article has to be completely negative, and I don't think it is, but it should be relevant to why McCloy is notable. So maybe saying something like "Before he was injured he was an avid Amateur Radio radio operator and other radio operators have been following his recovery on the air" or something like that. This puts it in context. Just listing his callsign without any context doesn't make any sense and most people who aren't familiar with Amateur Radio (which is most readers) will not understand. Crunch 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll side with Crunch here. To my knowledge, nobody on any of the threads and said "Yeah, I talked to that Randal guy 4 times a day on the local ham repeater, he was really into it." In fact, there are no traces of his radio operation or callsign on the Internet besides his license grant from the FCC. --Vees 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked anyone if they've talked to McCloy on the radio before. The thread on a popular ham radio dicussion board is here: Has anyone ever worked KC8VKZ?. Please consult it for any possible background info. --Vees 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, very happy to see this article's evolution: looks great! Thanks for keeping it around for us. Holon67 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently yet another function that Wikipedia and allied projects do better than just about anything else out there on the Web-- where else can you turn to get ongoing updates of the condition of somebody like McCloy? To get the same info from cnn.com or nytimes.com one must hunt and peck for minutes. Googling for it (including on Google News) leads you into a big chaff/wheat task... Yet there is the question of why Wikipedia seems to be outnewsing Wikinews here... JDG 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what has been going on over the last two weeks? Captain Jackson 05:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small update at the bottom of the article that came out on February 15. I also cited my source in the appropriate location in the article. -WikiFiend90 06:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with this section? It seems to mostly be quoted from some source, but that's unclear - that or it's absurdly POV. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I axed it. It was medical speculation from a single POV, which has nothing to really do with the point of this biographical article, much less the WikiPedia policies as a whole. heh, not to mention he was freaking released today, which kinda renders all that nay-saying to be a big load of poo... BTW, anti-aging expert!?!? WTF would he know about a suffocation case. Unless we're all suffocating to death slowly, wooooo :-p (Watch me get all flamed now) --El benito 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, it looks like it's back. This section is rediculous and adds little to the article. This so called expert who repeatedly claims to know more than McCloys caregivers even though he is "not a doctor!" is laughable in the extreme. The section needs to be pulled. In addition, carbon monoxide does not reside in the body for extended periods of time, it simply has a higher affinity for the hemoglobin in red blood cells. It certainly would not require "100 treatments at three atmospheres" to rid the body as this quack claims.

I may not be a doctor but I am a microbiologist if that helps. I'll let someone else axe it as I haven't been involved in this article before and just came by to read up on his condition. J Shultz 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are an ignoramous, and a fool, and a shame to all microbiologists. I am trying to HELP Randall McCloy. You call me a "quack" but you don't know anything at all about hyperbaric oxygen. I know more than McCloy's caregivers, which is precisely why I am saying that he is not receiving proper medical attention, because I am not a doctor and it is pathetic that I should know more than his doctors about what he needs. Hyperbaric oxygen not only removes carbon monoxide, it also recovers the nervous system. You don't seem to understand that McCloy's problem is neurological.

McCloy might be alive today because I called to alert his doctors that he needed hyperbaric oxygen. They had no idea about this. The fact is that they didn't even have a hyperbaric oxygen chamber anywhere in the state of West Virginia, and nobody close to him knew that carbon monoxide is treated with hyperbaric oxygen. I broke my back to call from Mexico, to save his life, and you call me a "quack".

I am an expert in what I am saying, and you are an ignorant fool... you are worse than a fool, because you are a dangerous fool... you pretend to know because you are a microbiologist, but you don't know anything at all about how he should be treated to recover his nervous system. You don't know anything about hyperbaric oxygen or about the nervous system, and you dare to censor what I say, and I am an expert.

I can get 10 medical doctors to testify that I am an expert, and that what I am saying that Randall McCloy needs is correct. But I only need ONE expert, and that is Dr. Richard Neubauer, of Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center, in Boca Raton, Florida. And you had better not dare touch my paragraphs in wikipedia again.

I refer you and others to the page that you have to READ before you repeat that I am a quack. You should have read this before you erased my criticism:

http://www.oceanhbo.com/client/ohc/neuroeff.htm

I quote Dr. Neubauer from that page:

"Left: SPECT scans of the brain of a three year old male near drowning patient shown shortly after the accident showing decreased brain activity. The patient presented in a persistent vegetative state, and was pronounced blind with severe spasticity.

Right: SPECT scans of the same child taken 9 months later demonstrating increased brain activity and blood flow following 120 hyperbaric oxygen treatments. The child was now alert, responsive, laughing, eating and drinking normally, walking, speaking bi-lingually, and had regained normal vision."

Now, are you going to erase my comments here, also, so that nobody can read that Randall McCloy's medical treatment has been and is still "lacking"?

Well I'm going to remove it...even though I said I'd wait. It's too silly to leave in. BTW, the address that keeps changing it (201.129.21.158) is soley responsible for its repeated insertion. J Shultz 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT going to remove it, and if you do, it will be back tomorrow because I am copying what I write and I will paste it in tomorrow. I warn you and everybody else, do not remove what I write again, because I promise you that all hell is going to break loose here... You cannot censor the TRUTH... It might HURT your ego, but it remains TRUE.

You may add to my criticism, you can say I am mistaken if you want to, but DO NOT ERASE my criticism again!

I am the "anti aging expert" that has been writing this, and YOU don't have any right to erase or censor what I am writing.

It is a FACT that Randall McCloy's medical treatment has been lacking to an extreme, and it is a FACT that there was not a hyperbaric oxygen tank near the mines, and apparently not anywhere in the state of West Virginia, which is why he had to be taken to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

It is also true that he was only given THREE hyperbaric oxygen sessions when he should have been given more than 100. You know nothing at all about hyperbaric oxygen so keep your stinking paws off of what I write, because I DO know what I am writing.

It is also true that Randall McCloy has only partially recovered his mental abilities, and this is partly because he has NOT been given proper medical treatment, including not enough hyperbaric oxygen sessions, at 3 atmospheres as I correctly wrote in the article that you so ignobly erased, for the last time yesterday.

And you, user JShultz, and user el Benito... neither of you has the authority to censor criticism of Randall McCloy's medical treatment. Neither of you are expert on hyperbaric oxygen, and I am quoting an expert, Dr. Richard Neubauer. I am an expert's expert on topics that you don't know about, and that are important to help Randall McCloy recover. It might hurt you that his medical treatment has been deficient, perhaps you don't like criticism of doctors... but nobody has permission to ERASE my CRITICISM of his medical treatment.

If you want to disagree, you can add your point of view to it, but NOBODY is going to censor my criticism, do you get it? You cannot erase my criticism anymore, because my criticism needs to be heard to help Randall McCloy. Or else I call for arbitration. I am re-writing my article, and it better be there tomorrow. Is that understood? - Ellis Toussier If you want to speak to me by telephone, my phone is 011 5255 5280 3644, in Mexico City.

Ok, well this is interesting, you sound absolutely crazed at the audacity of multiple people complaining about your edits.

"multiple people" are all ignorant of what Randall McCloy needs to recover his nervous system. I can and will get "multiple people" to support me.

I've never encountered a response quite like that. First and foremost I would like to remind you that this is an encyclopaedic reference to Randal McCloy, not to your theories on hyperbaric treatment.

The article has everything to do with the mining accident, and his subsecuent medical treatment and partial recovery. The article is 1 Medical treatment and condition, 1.1 Hyperbaric treatment in Pittsburgh, 1.2 Return to Ruby Memorial, 1.3 Ongoing condition At Ruby Memorial, and 1.4 HealthSouth Mountainview Regional Rehabilitation Hospital. 1.5 is perfectly legitimate criticism or comment of the above. It should not be a different article, the criticism of his medical treatment is a legitimate part of this article.

Randall McCloy has still not recovered medically, because he cannot tie his shoe laces, and he is confused about the date. This is entirely a medical problem, and he has not received proper medical treatment. It is not enough to keep him warm and give him food, and physical therapy. Randall McCloy has so far recovered in spite of the lack of proper medical treatment, but from the beginning there was improper equipment and improper knowledge of what treatment he should have, and this is the central issue and the reason why today he still has not recovered his mental faculties.

Your response to my post and the consensus of other users suggests that you have a very real attachment to this first person research that you are presenting but I can assure you that this is not the correct place to present it. If we assume that your statements are medical fact, which I do not believe, even then it would not be appropriate to have your section in this particular article.

It is presented as a part of the page... First, the accident, then mention is made of his treatment with hyperbaric oxygen, several mentions of his medical treatment, and then my criticism of his medical treatment. It fits in perfectly well in this article and would not be correctly placed in a separate article about medical criticism of the Randal McCloy case. It belongs HERE, nowhere else.

Referencing a single recovery case of a child by the way is hardly "proof" of your position. Get it?

It certainly is indicative that something has been omitted from his treatment, since they are both cases of oxygen deprivation to the brain and nervous system in general... and I have not finished presenting all the proof, because I didn't realize there was going to be a trial. If Randall McCloy had been given proper medical treatment from the beginning, without a doubt Dr. Neubauer would have taken a SPECT scan before beginning hyperbaric oxygen, and he would have been given as many sessions as this example of a drowning victim. Delaying his hyperbaric treatment has probably caused him permanent damage, but much can still be saved. I suppose you have not taken the trouble to read the page that I linked you to above, but you should read it, and see the videos, so that you might learn something.

"nobody has permission to ERASE my CRITICISM of his medical treatment" Wrong! If it is in the main article and doesn't belong...it goes away!

Calling me an ignoramus isn't going to win you any battles around here so I suggest you cut it from your future debates. Throwing your personal, unsubstantiated, and amateur beliefs into an article is ludicrous in the extreme and I'll happilly call on mediation before you do it again. Use this talk page for your response, if it is not presented clearly and we agree on a resolution I'll ask for mediation. I know where this will lead, you sound like you are a bit over the edge on the topic so good luck with your debate here, you will lose quickly if you continue your current path. I'm removing your last edit. J Shultz 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Shultz... Now you did it. This is war. Now you have vandalized my article. I call you a vandal, and a danger to the Wikipedia community.

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Committing vandalism is a violation of the Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others."

I am officially asking help from others to stop JShultz from vandalizing my edit, and I am asking for the page as I have written to it, which is an integral part of the page, to be protected from JShultz and el Benito in particular.

You must know that there is a page history, and your vandalism serves for nothing because it will be restored. I am going to call for help or arbitration from Wikipedia so that the Truth can be and will be heard.

Your ego is hurt, because I called you an ignoramous. That continues to be true too, because an ignoramous is somebody who is ignorant... And I called you a fool, because you are presumptuous that as a microbiologist you know something about his medical condition, and that makes you a fool, because a fool is somebody who is foolish. I am not a doctor, but I say it very plainly, I don't say "I am a poet if that helps..." (re: "I may not be a doctor but I am a microbiologist if that helps.") But I do say and guarantee that I am an expert's expert, and I know what I am talking about even if I am not a doctor.

And you are right, I am absolutely crazed at the audacity of YOU in particular removing my criticism, because this is the SECOND time you have removed my edit, (now, the THIRD time) and my edit is meant to help the health of the person in question in the article, who has not recovered his mental health due to the medical treatment he has received. I also wrote to West Virginia state senators and congressmen, so yes, you might say my mind is made up and I am focused on how and what I must do and have to do so that he gets proper medical treatment. I know it hurts the ego of doctors, and it must hurt many egos, but it is the truth.

YOU don't know enough about his medical treatment or about what he needs. I am not certain if you are saying I am crazy, when you say I am "a bit over the edge" but you ain't never seen a crazy man like me before... and if I am crazy, you sure are going to see one soon.

I am reporting this incident to Wikipedia, I don't think you have the authority to censor the truth, even if you have been named an "editor" or whatever, which I doubt. And I don't care who you are, you cannot censor the truth. I am fighting for the health of Randal McCloy, and I am going to continue to fight for Randal McCloy.

Hi Ellis —

Let's take a deep breath for a second. The real issues here are not any of the following:

• Whether or not you are an expert
• Whether or not you are fighting for the sake of Randal McCloy
• Whether Randal needed hyperbaric oxygen
• Whether Randal is alive today because of your calls

If Randal is indeed alive today because of your calls, then your efforts are laudable, and I hope Randal's family knows about what you did.
The only issue that is at stake here is:

• What does and does not belong in a wikipedia article

To answer that, there are many official policies that can help us:

• Most importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Following from this, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a place for opinions on current affairs
• Similarly, Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
  • These two policies work together to stress one point: Wikipedia must be a secondary source of information. Therefore, we may report things that have been written about in the news, published in books or articles, or otherwise use information that we can cite. We may not write about our own actions or opinions, or create original news reports. Thus, if your actions have been written about in respectable news sources, then we may add them if they are of encyclopedic value.

Where I think the confusion lies is in your intentions: "I am fighting for the health of Randal McCloy", "I am focused on how and what I must do and have to do so that he gets proper medical treatment", "my criticism needs to be heard to help Randall". This is all very laudable, but your are going about your goals all wrong.
If you wanted to save someone's life, would you write to the Encyclopedia Britannica? No, of course not: It's an encyclopedia. Likewise, you can't save someone's life by editing a Wikipedia article. If you want to help Randal, keep talking to the Doctors. If they're really not listening, maybe you should write to the news papers. Maybe you should write to other experts and get them to add their opinions. Maybe if enough experts wrote in, Randal's doctors would understand your point. But editing an encyclopedia is not the correct way to make your views known.

I do hope that makes sense, and you know understand why this information does not belong. It's not because we're right and your wrong, it's because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, blog or anything else. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well... then... In that case it is appropriate that I can write about the unpreparedness that was characteristic of this disaster... in mines, and government, and hospitals, and the medical staff... in this case where there was a coal mining accident, in a coal mining state, in which carbon monoxide poisoning is one of the threats to a miner's life in case of an explosion (as occurred in this accident) and where a hyperbaric oxgen chamber should have been near the mines, the hospitals should have had hyperbaric oxygen chambers, there should have been at least one doctor expert in hyperbaric oxygen therapy, hyperbaric oxygen should have been administered immediately upon rescuing the miner, and a neurologist or other specialist should have applied this and other therapies that are appropriate to help recover the nervous system. This is an integral part of an article such as this... I quote from the article, capitals, and comments in parenthesis, mine:

McCloy was found, according to rescuers "by the sound of moans" and NEEDED URGENT RESUSCITATION (hyperbaric oxygen chamber should have been close by.) Ben Hatfield, CEO of International Coal Group which owns the Sago mine reported that the rescuers, while treating him, had to walk 3/4 of a mile before taking a tram another two miles to the surface. There HE WAS TREATED AT A TRIAGE CENTER SET UP AT THE MINE (hyperbaric oxygen chamber should have been there) then taken by ambulance to St. Joseph's Hospital in nearby Buckhannon, at about 1:30 a.m on January 4, 2006. Susan Long, MD, a surgeon at St. Joseph's, said McCloy was unconscious but moaning when he arrived and was in critical condition (needed HBO but nobody realized it...) Long said McCloy's carbon monoxide levels were negative, he was dehydrated, but did not have visible burns. After being stabilized, McCloy was transported by ambulance to a level 1 trauma center at West Virginia University's Ruby Memorial Hospital, 50 miles away in Morgantown (where there was no HBO chamber... and no doctor who knew that carbon monoxide is best treated with HBO...)

I could continue down the article showing how this relates to the article, but it makes more sense to write it in a separate sub-heading, or to re-write the entire article noting the unpreparedness. These are facts that can be reported in an encyclopedia, like you have seen in Encyclopedia Britannica or others about the unpreparedness and the human errors that led to the sinking of the Titanic and the lack of lifeboats.

Returning to the example of the Titanic, the bad experience served to increase safety on other ships. Today all ships carry enough life boats for everybody. - Ellis

The following is an open letter that I'm going to extend to all parties involved in the argument over the hyperbaric information inclusion. Please read carefully before replying

First: Wikipedia:Civility Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed.

Rudeness was started by "el Benito" and "J Shultz." What does "WTF" mean? (Re: "WTF would he know about a suffocation case.") Who started by calling me a "quack" and saying the aritcle is "rediculous" and said I am a "so called expert" and what I write is "is laughable in the extreme"? (re: "This section is rediculous and adds little to the article. This so called expert who repeatedly claims to know more than McCloys caregivers even though he is "not a doctor!" is laughable in the extreme. The section needs to be pulled. In addition, carbon monoxide does not reside in the body for extended periods of time, it simply has a higher affinity for the hemoglobin in red blood cells. It certainly would not require "100 treatments at three atmospheres" to rid the body as this quack claims.")

So... if they can use this language about me, they can stand that I can say "YOU are an ignoramous, and a fool, and a shame to all microbiologists." That is not rude, it is answering them more politely than they referred to me, although I admit I prefer to be called a "quack" than "an ignoramous and a fool"... but that is what happens when you start insulting others: you have to be prepared because you might receive insults too. - Ellis

Let's keep this discussion clean. We're trying to discuss information. Let's not get absorbed in attacking each other's credentials. No more name calling. I'm trying to be impartial here, you should too.

o.k. No more name calling against me, either. - Ellis

Second: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages Sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing El benito 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.[reply]

I don't know how you do it, but in any case I left my name and phone number, I did not write anonymously. I made perfectly clear who I am and how to get in touch with me. - Ellis

Sir/madam Ellis Toussier, who is interested in including the hyperbaric treatment advice, we have no idea who you are. I understand that you want to be believed, but to the rest of us, you're just words on a page with no identity attached. I link my own personal profile, despite the lack of professionalism I've put into it, because that's who I am here. It offers reference and a place for personal feedback, which doesn't clutter up other spaces.

I will be glad to tell you more about me, tell me how to do it. I signed my name and phone number above, I do it again here: - Ellis Toussier, Tel. 011 5255 5280-3644 in Mexico City.

Third: Wikipedia:No original research Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

Sir/madam Ellis Toussier, who is interested in including the hyperbaric treatment advice, your information as you have presented it so far is original research. The information you've included appears to be an unpublished theory.

Fourth: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Furthermore, sir/madam Ellis Toussier, you have defended your inclusions as being done to "assist Randal McCloy".

That is in the back of my mind, but actually I want to show the unpreparedness that occurred in this mining accident, so that this will serve as a bad example that should never occur again and should be avoided in the future, not only in West Virginia coal mines, but in coal mines everywhere, including Mexico or any other place in the world. This should be a part of this article, which is entirely about the medical treatment received or omitted by Randal McCloy...

I appreciate your passion in this, but Wikipedia is far from being any sort of line of communication with him. Wikipedia recognizes it's own shortcomings as something that can be edited by anybody. For example, I could update this article with advice for Mr McCloy to eat a healthy diet, and regardless of how useful this advice might be, it has no place in a factual & relevant account of Mr McCloy's tragedy. Your hyperbaric advice, regardless of its medical worth, has no place here. In this case, I'd think that it should be published to a medical journal or at least should receive news coverage before we can include it.

The facts that HBO was lacking in the State of West Virginia is published, since he had to be transferred to the "more progressive" state of Pennsylvania (I am being sarcastic) where apparently they also didn't know enough about hyperbaric oxygen therapy because they sent him back after only three sessions, when he needed more than 100 sessions. This is the point of the whole section I want to write about (or somebody else can write it...) the lack of proper medical treatment.

Fourth: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Sir/madam Ellis Toussier, if you are interested in pursuing your inclusion further, please consult the dispute resolution advice. At this point in time, a survey would likely not result favorably for you, so you might want to see about appealing to a third party.

Thanks, Ben --El benito 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking to influence the jury. And please stop calling me "Sir/madam"... I already asked for a "mediation cabal" so I will wait until such person shows up, or we resolve it here. - Ellis

• Ellis, you may sign posts by using 4 "~" marks after your statement. Also, please answer posts at the bottom of the paragraph to which you are responding. It is difficult to read the original post if you break up the text by inserting your answer. It is not appropriate to discuss the technical details of hyperbaric treatment or the lack of such equipment in the mining industry in a biographical article on an individual. you may find it more constructive to look into an article that deals with this technique as its own topic, assuming you can maintain a non-POV angle on your topic. I hope you have decided to leave this article essentially intact as it now stands. Finally, Sir/Madam was being used to address you in a neutral gender fashion as we don't know specifically that you are a man or woman. Thank you. J Shultz 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I was called in as part of medcabal to help resolve a conflict here [1]. To me, the situation seems very clear cut: nothing can appear in a wikipedia article that is not sourced to a reliable secondary or primary source -- that's clear from Wikipedia:No original research.

The paragraphs striken from the article [2] seem, unfortunately, to be clearly original research. If there is a reliable source off the wiki that these things can be referenced to (ideally, a newspaper or magazine article -- something satisfying WP:CITE), then we can definitely include it.

Ellis, I understand your passion in re: this issue -- however, wikipedia may not be the best place for this stuff to appear. Please all let me know briefly if this helps, and we can move from here. Sdedeo (tips) 19:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree, as I've said from the beginning. So as far as I can see everyone (besides Ellis) is in agreement that the article should stand as is with no 1st person point of view on the subject of hyperbaric treetment or lack thereof.

A side note for Ellis in the future: Self proclaiming yourself as an expert is a really bad idea and is considered to be a cardinal sin when working in the research community. In the professional world of medicine or research, consensus of your worth in a field is arrived at through the opinions of your peers. So in the future, don't go around telling everyone you are an expert, it REALLY dilutes your standing with true scientists and will make people label you as non-important to any technical argument you may find yourself in. To illustrate that the hyperbaric issue is a complicated one, I'd point you to these reputable journal articles that have been peer reviewed which demonstrate that the issue is not settled, and that even the "experts" are still unsure of the best treatment regiments to employ [3], [4], [5]

None of those sources indicate that HBO is required at anywhere near 100 treatments, in fact standard and validated practice in addition to Normobaric O2 is only three treatments. And guess what? That is the number of treatments Randal got and now he seems to be doing quite well [6]. So if it isn't established medical practice to give 100 treatments, it doesn't really belong in this encyclopeadia article. But I digress...

Back to the point at hand, I'd even venture to say that if an offsite source proclaims that West Virginia or the mining community in general is lacking in medically useful treatment options for miners suffering from CO poisoning that the inclusion of those facts in THIS particular article is inappropriate. J Shultz 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ellis hasn't responded for three days, I'm going to assume that he's now OK with the current status of the article, and I'm going to close the mediation. Please let me know on my talk page if you need me back. Sdedeo (tips) 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that the naive ones of you out there that constantly clean up articles of powerful statements, or statements that are above you, have once again been shown to be overzealous. I emphasized in this article months ago that this was the sole living witness of the men that were trapped. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT POINT. Why? Because Big Corporations will go to great measure to censor such events in the hope of minimizing blame and thereby of how much it is going to cost them when those hurt and the families of those killed come knocking for reparations. At first, I thought McCloy sold out when he said all he wanted was to get back to his home. Now, with the revelation BY HIM that four air packs did indeed fail, and therefore, arguably, the other men died unnecessarily because of the company's negligence on safety measures and safety measure maintenance, I just want to say: leave others insights alone!!! Stop the censorship and go back to your hand-basket weaving and wearing. You make me sick! 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh yea, PS, for those of you who wanted to DELETE this article as UNIMPORTANT, you should look for work as lobbyist and lawyers defending and representing Big Money in Washington and other places of "freedumb". Sad you missed the Third Reich. Holon67 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical rambling and incoherent response from someone who doesn't undertand that standards do exist in what is or is not included in a Wikipedia article. From what I can tell, you've made one recent edit that relates a simple one line statement that is appropriate and was left in tact. So really, where is the fire??? Why don't you take your sensationalist and pseudoscientific talk page B.S. and calm down for one second? If you want to save the human race from big-business evil money grubbers you can do a hell of a lot better than mucking up an article on the individual Randal McCloy Jr. Here is a tip, if you want to make an argument that has some merit (for instance that you would like to include additional information regarding the faulty air packs that McCloy relates in his recent interview) why don't you construct a detailed, relevant, and properly sourced paragraph that you think will add something to the article instead of blathering tripe here that makes you sound crazy? Nobody has moved to delete this article since the very beginning of the tragedy when it was unclear if Randall McCloy should warrant his own article or stay merged in the Sago Mine disaster section. Nobody has edited anything in this article other than rampant POV pushers who come on here thinking they can front their own pet theories that have nothing to do with a proper encyclopedia article on an individual. For more on what not to do to this article, please see the above discussion on inserting POV info on hyperbaric treatment. In response to your other ascertion about the third reich, I fail to see how it relates this article. J Shultz 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• wow, you sure do "talk", "talk:", "Talk:" alot. how about trying to add something to articles, take your own advice. i laugh in your face: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JShultz Holon67 (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please update--84.61.135.27 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% and flagged it for needing updating -Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]