Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:34, 23 March 2009

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Drudge Report

Ratel thanks for your scholarship at the Drudge Report. Just so long as there is a mention of the true tenor of the Drudge Report in the first paragraph, I would be happy. Not everyone is as intelligent as wiki editors to sniff the truth out about a media site, so it is our responsibility to make sure the general public of all levels can clearly understand the truth. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is an important core characteristic of any article, to have the first paragraph sum up the essentials of the whole, and a core essential in understanding the Drudge Report is knowing that it does have an obvious conservative bias. The article itself proves it. Perry wishes for more proof but I disagree. Please help me contact the appropriate wiki editors or whoever to help resolve this stand off we have going. Thanks. Jason Parise (talk)

I'm keeping an eye on things now that I see there has been some new activity. Seems this will be the kind of Sisyphean battle for truth only those on vahalla could appreciate. Jason Parise (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Thanks for updating the references on the Drudge Report. I didn't want you to think I was deliberately giving you a hard time, I just wanted the sourcing to stand up to any future complaints. 72.84.238.145 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You were right. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Roald Dahl article

Thank you for considering my input. I think the inclusion "according to Clifton" makes the article more accurate. It is still interesting to find out what happened there - when I find something credible I will let you know. Altima5 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Suicide bag

On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suicide bag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cunard (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Title of interview

Sorry about this. I didn't realize that the caption was the title of the interview. I checked and saw that I my edit was hasty. I hereby sentence myself to ride 20 kilometers on Treebeard's shoulders. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia article

Hi Ratel, I will keep an eye on the euthanasia page. Let's try to keep the page neutral and factual (and stop an edit war as soon as we see signs of a start). Thank you for your interest and help! LennartVerhagen (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of warning

Re your removal of the warning, you have indeed violated the rule, and it is additionally frowned upon to remove warnings that help administrators keep track of your record. These are your four reverts, all four of which meet the definition of revert per WP:3RR: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. You should pay special attention to the part of WP:3RR that says Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd revert you cite is not a revert, but a rewrite of a section to answer the concerns of the other editor who was removing the material. I do not count that as a reversion. Note that the rule states "reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule". ► RATEL ◄ 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the 3rd example involved the restoration of removed material, it is a revert, and you would normally be blocked for a violation of the 3 revert rule. Your own interpretation of the rule would only likely come into it in a block appeal, and in all honesty, I think this reply would come across as gamey and would be dismissed by most admins. You could still, in any case, be blocked for WP:Edit warring irrespective of a specific 3RR violation, though I'm not the type of admin who normally does that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. According to the strict interpretation then, I did over-revert on that occasion. I guess I'm so used to trying to clean up after vandal "editors" who respond to things like sources they do not like by simply deleting entire sections, rather than fact tagging, that I overlooked the timing issue. ► RATEL ◄ 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, that's you violated our 3 revert rule again on Drudge Report. I'm protecting the page for a few days now. 3RR is supposed to be an electric fence rule, so if you violate the 3RR again after this expires, you'll leave me with no choice but to block you. This should be considered a final warning on this matter. Take the 3 day protection period as an opportunity to try to resolve the matter on talk. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, on my watchlist for 27 February 2009, I see 3 reverts, not 4. What's up? Some mistake perhaps? ► RATEL ◄ 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you avoided a technical violation by 50 minutes. A slip of the eye on my part. The anon, if he behaves the way you are saying, will be taken care of if necessary (see the message I left on his talk). Please just concentrate on thine own actions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Action T4

Howdy and thanks for the note! I agree the issue is problematic, although I don't know that protection of the page is warranted at this point (usually that is brought about by either persistent vandalism or an edit war of some magnitude, neither of which we have reached). I have read through the section and agree a revert is in order and have done so. I have also started a discussion on the talk page and hopefully we can get the matter resolved there. I left a note on the user's talk page noting this as well. Many thanks for pointing this out and let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Drudge Report

Thanks for the cookie lol. As for the article I think it's common sense, Drudge is conservative and the Report is considered that way by many. I just feel WP should leave it to the reader. After all, what's conservative to me, might be centrist to someone else, it's all relative IMO and this way leaves open :). Soxwon (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We simply report that the sources say. If we had them calling him a Liberal, we'd report that too. ► RATEL ◄ 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Block history

Ratel, I didn't block you for 3RR. Check your log, it is clean. I actually avoided blocking you for a violation of the 3RR, and then avoided blocking you again for another offense, despite the rapidity of reoccurrence (though not a technical 3RR vio the second time). In all fairness, you were very lucky as 9 out of 10 admins would have blocked you. Glad you enjoyed the essay. The essay is of course a joke. What I'd say is that to avoid being blocked in a Ransai (even just for edit-warring), stick to 2rr and always try to talk. You're most likely to be blocked for edit-warring if it looks like you are disruptive or a barrier to consensus, or if the admin feels that a block is the only way to teach you not to edit-war. But sticking to 2RR will do a lot of good too.;) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice, I must try to stick to it. I'm a bit warlike. You should write more essays like that one on warring. I was tickled pink. You have a talent, without doubt. ► RATEL ◄ 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Your forthcoming apology is duly noted . CENSEI (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

These tests are not definitive. It's relatively simple to spoof IP addresses by using proxy servers, so while I may now not entirely believe you are andyvphil, it is still not an impossibility. ► RATEL ◄ 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Relating to other editors

Hi. It is a concern when one editor tells another editor to "not edit this page in any way" as you did here. Aside from the possibility that such language may appear aggressive to other editors, it also indicates ownership of an article. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I started the page and I don't want someone who knows nothing about the topic trying to delete it even before I've had a chance to fix it up to standard. So yes, given his contribution history of doing not much more than deleting stuff, I asked him to desist, and I stand by it. ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)