Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 30 December 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Brendan19, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Your recent addition to this article includes a comparison of Limbaugh to "other drug offenders", a direct inference that Limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Misplaced Pages articles. Thank you. --Allen3  14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hey allen, he agreed to a plea deal for a drug offense. thanks- Brendan19 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

oh allen, by the way... my stuff had plenty of reputable sources, so what were you talking about? Brendan19 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While there are plenty of reputable sources that the deal occurred, all of them that I have read show that Limbaugh entered a "not guilty" plea and that no trial is scheduled to try him on the single filed charge. The reasons for Limbaugh and the District Attorney's office agreeing to the settlement have also not been revealed. As a result the assumption that Limbaugh is guilty of a drug offense is original research and ignores other possibilities that conform with the known facts. One such possibility is that Limbaugh decided the settlement was less expensive than continuing to defend his constitutional rights from a three year investigation (compare $30,000 to $35,000 in fines and fees to $500+/hour for high power lawyers) and that the other details of the settlement allowed both sides to end the ordeal with a minimal loss of face. At this time there is no way for Misplaced Pages to determine which possibility is closer to the truth and until reliable sources become available to clarify the situation the article needs to avoid taking a position supporting any of these possibilities. --Allen3  13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i would like to point out that my "inference that limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act" made it onto the limbaugh page after considerable debate amongst many. limbaughs quote about how drug offenders should go to jail has already been removed and it should be interesting to see if limbaugh fanatics can water it down any more than it is now... 'Limbaugh has, throughout the years, condemned illegal drug use on his radio broadcast and has stated that those convicted of drug crimes should be sent to jail.' the last sentence started out as... 'This deal is in contrast to what Limbaugh thought other drug offenders' punishments should be, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995. ' lets see where it goes from here. Brendan19 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rush Limbaugh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Allen3  03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

oh alan here we go again. see above (rush limbaugh).Brendan19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

also, why only give me the 3rr warning when there were two of us making reverts? could it be that you didnt say anything to bedford because you only go after people who have different opinions than you?Brendan19 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take the time to check the facts before making unsupported accusations of misconduct. A simple comparison of the time when I placed the warning on your talk page with the edit history for the Rush Limbaugh article shows that at the time the warning was made, you were the only person bumping up against the 3 revert rule. If you then check my edit history you will see I was not active after placing the warning till the next day. The obvious and correct answer to your question is that I did not issue the warning to Bedford was because at the time I left my computer there was no reason to do so. As to you concerns about coordinated efforts, I would advise you reflect on Misplaced Pages:Words of wisdom#The paradigm that there's only a cabal if you want there to be one. --Allen3  00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

i did check the facts and that is why i said what i said.

limbaugh edits...

(cur) (last) 03:45, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250166968 by Brendan19 (talk) I did give a reason; you're out of context besides that) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:28, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,008 bytes) (→Prescription drug addiction: his own views on the subject are quite relevant and appropriate. i am inserting rush's own opinions- not my own. if you remove this please give a reason) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:18, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250163996 by Brendan19 (talk) WP:UNDUE) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:07, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,295 bytes) (Undid revision 250162879 by Bedford (talk) look at the history of this page (specifically march 4th 2007). this was a majority decis) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:59, 7 November 2008 Bedford (Talk | contribs) (68,736 bytes) (Undid revision 250162648 by Brendan19 (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:57, 7 November 2008 Brendan19 (Talk | contribs) (69,295 bytes) (→Prescription drug addiction: there was a big fight over this one a while ago... not sure how it got removed, but it should definitely be there.) (undo)

your edits...

21:25, 8 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Rush Limbaugh ‎ (Revert POV Apples and oranges comparison. Limbaugh has never been tried for, let alone convicted of, drug charges so adding the comparison serves no useful purpose)

21:38, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Sarah Palin ‎ (→Public image: remove clear distortion of cited source. When using a quotation, the full sentence should be considered instead of just the fragment supporting the article editor's viewpoint)

19:18, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Portal talk:United States Army ‎ (→Links in articles: another requested example)

17:24, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Wind & Water Puzzle Battles ‎ (Fix redirect) (top)

17:18, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) m Neil Weste ‎ (Reverted edits by 217.37.138.57 (talk) to last version by Studerby) (top)

03:35, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brendan19 ‎ ( You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. )

by a "simple comparison of the time" as you suggested, i see that you warned me about being blocked, then you say you didnt see bedford's revert ten minutes later. i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that even though i find it hard to believe that you would warn me and then not stick around ten minutes. so by that you would be "obvious and correct" that he had only reverted twice, but unfortunately for you it is easily seen that you were back editing @ 17:18. bedford's three edits were still within 24 hours at that point... all the way till 02:59 the next day. i also noticed that at 21:25 of the next day you made the exact same revert that bedford had been making. how would you explain that? and this time please tone down the condescension.

i would also add that the revert you and bedford attempted is the same one YOU fought for back in march of 2007. because of that i would have expected you to remember that a consensus ruled against the change you wanted. your intentions seem pretty clear.

oh and allen, lets not go on and on over this. at this time it is a moot point. i just wanted to hear why you would warn one and not the other. you gave an explanation and, while we dont agree, its not worth arguing about it. good day, sir. Brendan19 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

In the interest of keeping the discussion focused on areas where we may be able to approach an agreement; would you be willing to strike/remove this comment which may just distract from leading to a working environment where we can all make progress on the article? Thanks for you consideration. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

not trying to be difficult, but why do you think that would accomplish anything? Brendan19 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It would have prevented Collect from having something to go off on a digression about rather than him having to own up to the "compromises" that he says he supports. Thats his tactic. If we keep focused on getting to areas on which we can reach consensus, his acts of disruption and tendentious editing become even more obvious. However if other editors are also not focused on the areas where we can achieve consensus the whole page degenerates. WP:TPG -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe, but i believe he would have found a way to change topic anyway. that aside, i see your point. now that we have already gone past that do you still see a point in removing it? if so, im fine with it. Brendan19 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that striking it out will help contribute to the advancement of consensus on the article or if you feel that the continued presence is a distraction from the goal of reaching consensus on the article, sure. Otherwise it is water over the bridge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

water over the bridge as far as im concerned. Brendan19 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

or should it be "water under the bridge"?? :-) -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ha ha, yes it should. i was too tired to even notice. water over a bridge would be a bad thing. Brendan19 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See D&B reply on my talk page.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_LicesningMattnad (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

noted. glad something finally came of it. after my attempts at the admin noticeboard i thought nothing would ever stop his behavior. keep using logic, apparently it will work. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another RFC - take a look. Mattnad (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clutter

My advice was to post it to talk, not to clutter up AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

i misunderstood you then. sorry bout that. Brendan19 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect was booted for 3RR, and has now been unbooted. Inclusionist (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambulance driver

I see your point quite clearly...in fact I've been a paramedic for 35 years, going back to almost the very beginning. In this case, however, the article is a generic one about EMS around the world, not just in North America where we work. The fact remains that there are a number of systems worldwide in which the actual job title is still 'Ambulance Driver' (India and Hong Kong, as two examples), and these people are accompanied by someone else with higher medical training. In Italy, for example, the job title translates from the Italian as 'the one who works the stretcher'. We have to overcome our own sensitivities and be inclusive. Apart from that, Misplaced Pages style guidelines are very specific about No Point of View (NPOV), and so, the statement cannot stand as it is. Besides, the article is about EMS, not about what upsets those who work in the field. In my system, the term EMT is not used, and paramedics are distinguished by training level. We generally find it quite offensive if someone even puts EMT in front of P, since our entry level medics have considerably more training than those in a great many US states, and what passes for EMT training is normally about 1,000 hours less than we train our entry level people for. Still, you don't see anything in the article about Canadian medics being upset by being called EMTs, because it isn't really relevant to the article content. Search NPOV, and you'll see what I mean. In the meantime, there is a small group of us from around the world who have established the Emergency Medicine and EMS Task Force here. A lot of the work involved is trying to take the mass of Stub and Start articles that people have tossed in here, and turn them into useful research tools for our peers, and for those who are studying to join our profession. If you are interested, we'd be most pleased to have you join us. I'll come back in a minute and add the link. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A new Wikiproject has been created, please visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force we would love new editors to help with improvement of EMS and emergency medicine related articles!

Re: RFC at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Hello Brendan19,

This is in regard to your comment on the RFC at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 that you made on Dec 14. Since posting your comment, I've made changes to my version of the section taking into account opinions such as yours -- mainly aiming for a minimal contribution. I was wondering if you were willing to review my current version compared to the RFC initiator's version and chose which one you think best fulfills the perspective of your comment. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Brendan19 -- the above user is canvassing to try to gain for support for his version of a disputed page. That's fine, but he's misrepresenting the version I support; the version I currently support after weeks of arguing and compromise from my end is this one. Thanks for your input. csloat (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)