User talk:Ratel/Archive 11

Collect

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC result at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

Hello Ratel. If you closed this RFC, please say what you think the consensus result was. Note that you would be on safer ground if you asked someone uninvolved to close it, for example by a request at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I opened it, I closed it. Nobody has commented for a week now, so it's over. ► RATEL ◄ 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference Puctuation on David Copperfield (illusionist)

Just wanted to thank you for pointing out the correct punctuation for citing referenced...didn't know it comes AFTER the period of a sentence...I was treating it as (), which comes before. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP

If you carry on posting WP:BLP violations to Talk:David_Copperfield I will block you from editing. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the BLP violation? The proposed text is all from good sources. ► RATEL ◄ 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave the reasons on the article talk page: You can't smear a living person by bringing up the topic of a lawsuit over being smeared, which they won (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP). Wholly aside, Paris Match is an entertainment magazine, a tabloid, not a reliable source for this kind of content. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, you continue to miss the point. Paris Match is not used as a source for anything. The simple fact is that Copperfield and Schiffer launched a huge lawsuit against one of the most well known magazine's in the world and one of France's most successful and influential magazines. This fact was reported in many reliable sources. Now you cannot suppress this, or should not be able to suppress this, unless your misinterpretation of BLP holds sway. Just as the gay rumours concerning Tom Cruise are well covered in their own section on his page, so this needs to be covered. ► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, the weighting of that article and the backgrounds of the claims are not at all the same. As to the sources, which are another worry altogether, three are but "celebrity gossip" blurbs from 10-12 years ago, the other brings this up only in passing and the proposed text stitches together what could be an original take on the whole thing. So given the weight this would carry in what's still a rather short article, the wording you proposed and that it mostly harks back to a single magazine article the outcome of which was a settlement given to DC along with the thin sourcing, it spins out as a lightly sourced smear about a lightly reported rumour. I can indeed think of ways something like this could go into an article of this length and one might be able to do it with this, but so far what you're asking for strays from the sourcing and wording/neutrality needs put forth in WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, because the Cruise article also made me think of a way the wording could be shortened to say, one sentence, with perhaps one or two cites, so as to make the whole incident low weight. How would you word it? ► RATEL ◄ 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

However it was done, one would need to start straight off by saying those two were engaged for years. Context is more or less everything and the PM story/kerfluffle seems like no more than a wee glitch in his life. The big pitfall here is that the whole Paris Match thing was settled out of court, which is often very hard to reliably source. Never mind entertainers do all kinds of things in their overlapping personal lives which can easily be reported in mistaken, even "libelous" (see BLP) ways. By the bye, I grew up with copies of PM scattered about seemingly everywhere (cafés, waiting rooms, even at home now and then) and was warned many times it was tabloid trash, more or less unfit for my eyes, not at all the same magazine that had first built up French readership in the 50s-60s. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PM is probably low rent these days, granted, but nothing will be sourced to it, including the original report, which is in French I believe. I'll think of a neutral, truncated formulation that could pass muster in the next short while and ask for your comments. Not today, life calls. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, since the whole thing was stirred up by an article in PM, the magazine's tabloid-level reliability (which is to say, not much from the outlook of an encyclopedia) does have sway on whether it's even notable enough to bring into the article and either way means the very greatest of care must be taken in how this would be done, if it can be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Ok bearing all that in mind, how about:

In 1997, Copperfield and Schiffer, engaged since 1993, sued Paris Match for US$30 million after the magazine claimed their relationship was a stunt, that Schiffer was paid for pretending to be Copperfield's fiancée and that she didn't even like him. In 1999, they won an undisclosed sum and a retraction from Paris Match, although Copperfield's publicist confirmed that Schiffer had a contract to appear in the audience at Copperfield's show in Berlin where they met.

Seems neutral and factual to me. ► RATEL ◄ 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are still too many salacious claims/smears which are wholly unsupported as ever having happened and hence, unfit for this BLP as to weight and verifiability. Ratel, I think you're trying to get as much dirt as you can into celebrity BLPs (as you've said yourself in so many words and for which I blocked you earlier), I don't believe you're editing in a neutral way on the notion of "celebrity" and hence I think editors should be very wary of your input on any BLP. There may be a way to cover the PM story in DC's article but my outlook is that you're not the editor to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PM actually had letters and contracts, so the claims were not wholly unsupported. I'm not getting "dirt" in this instance; it does not reflect badly on the subject and is merely a biographical detail, and hence worthy of mention. So thanks for your input, but if you regard my edits as bad faith I can't see how we can work together on this or anything else. I'll take this to the BLP n/board when I'm ready. ► RATEL ◄ 10:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll not get the wording you put forth above, it's still a misleading smear, only shorter and I think you know that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What can I say to you? The wording is verbatim from the sources, or close to. I don't see how it can be made more neutral. What would you suggest? ► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't at all verbatim from the sources (which I've already commented on and I'm not talking about PM), you've stitched together shreds of text in a way which is bound to mislead readers. Meanwhile, you say "I can't see how we can work together on this or anything else," but nevertheless ask me to word it for you. I'm here as an admin, to watch and deal with BLP worries. As such, I'm neutral as to content. I do indeed believe there is a way to get that content into the article but will stay neutral as to whether it should go in, even with wording and sourcing which abide by BLP. Owing to this and the background here, I won't be writing content for the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Small selection taken at random:

Chicago Sun-Times

International Herald Tribune

Entertainment Weekly

The Guardian

The Observer

Magic Times

People Mag

Spokesman Review

Buffalo News

San Jose Mercury News

Indian Express

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Contra Costa Times 1

Contra Costa Times 2

Las Vegas Sun

Modesto Bee

Fox (fact is mentioned)

BTW, there is a pay-to-view archive at Spokane Spokesman-Review that has the snippet: "Schiffer and Copperfield deny the charges, though they do admit the first meeting involved a contract. But, his publicist says, ``there is no contract that ..." If this is true, it is very notable. In fact is is true, as you can see here [1] So, inn fact, far from your claim that this is a mere "smear", it is based in fact and is notable. Who knew their first meeting was contractual? Well, it was, and it's sourced. ► RATEL ◄ 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I now think this warrants a separate section under "Personal life" called "Relationship with Claudia Schiffer", which should include these facts as well as the gifts he gave her (some very extravagant), as well as the current one sentence there. Moving data to relevant talk page soon. Are you going to delete it if I do that? ► RATEL ◄ 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

These are living persons, which en.Wikipedia deals with very carefully. So, put it this way, as far as one can tell, they met "on the job," so to speak. Happens to many celebrities, many others too. So what if it was a high paying job? Costly gifts? Yawn. Folks get stirred up over one another and open their wallets day and night. For the third time (I think), there is indeed a way to word this for the article, even with a nod to the claims, but the text (editorial voice) can't lay smeary hints. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you think, and I'm seeking another opinion. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Flowanda Stalking

From your user page it looks like you have been around Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you don't mind, I would like to get some advice. I am new to Wikipedia (1.5 articles so far) but from my recent interaction with Flowanda it looks like his modus operandi is to be accusatory, outright demining and utilize a Cloak & Dagger editing style. H’s been on my case on an article that I wrote and from his comments it’s becoming apparent that for him it’s all about saving face. I also have a feeling that he has asked another editor to join the debate in order to skew the discussion, but I have now way of proving it.

What would you recommend, should I drop the article and let it go?--PiRSqr (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have deep lungs, a liking for argument, lots of time to waste and a good understanding of all the policies, my advice would be to abandon any brawl with experienced editors you feel are obstructive or contentious. I stick around and argue my points, but that's me. :) ► RATEL ◄ 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like arguments (unless they are constructive), have no time to waste and at this point am not very familiar with the intricacies of editing Wikipedia. I think I got the gist. Thnx--PiRSqr (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

re Your comment would be appreciated

I read about that issue... Has this been through any form of dispute resolution? Request for Comment, something like that? Also, it'd be best, to expose your ongoing conversation to the wider community for more eyes, if it were conducted not on any one editor's talk page but at a central location like the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible format for RfC to address that:

== Flu sucks ==

Truly. Hope you feel better. Poor little flu bugs have no clue what they're in for though. :) [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 09:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks, I think I'm winning, but this one is a doozie. [[File:Tox poisonous.svg|25px]] [[User:Ratel|<span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄</span>]] 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::Looks like you're back in action, so I guess you're a least feeling better? :) [[User:TheMagicOfDC|TheMagicOfDC]] ([[User talk:TheMagicOfDC|talk]]) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks, yes, a bit, but still feeling weak and bruised. [[User:Ratel|<span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄</span>]] 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm suffering from kidney stones at the moment...hope we both feel better soon! [[User:TheMagicOfDC|TheMagicOfDC]] ([[User talk:TheMagicOfDC|talk]]) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Request for Comment on [issue] ==

Neutrally worded statement about dispute.
===Previously involved editors===
====Comment by previously-involved Editor 1====
Comment by user.
====Comment by previously-involved Editor 2====
Comment by user.
===Previously uninvolved editors===
====Comment by previously-uninvolved Editor 1====
Comment by user.
====Comment by previously-involved Editor 2====
Comment by user.

You can solicit comment at the RfC by posting brief, neutrally worded statements at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Try that out. :P Cirt (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Diff? Cirt (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would recommend dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely why I would section it out as above. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some formatting to the RfC. As other editors comment, it should keep to that above format. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a notice at WP:BLPN asking for participation. Flowanda | Talk 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I hope you don't mind, but I thought you might help me out with my profile?

How do I make my profile look a little more like a profile? How do I Put a pick up and other things? :)

How are you feeling? My 10yr old daughter just got out of the hospital with the flu (N1H1) so I know It's tough to beat!!

emely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

where did my comments go?

I see that you moved some of my comments to sections that you felt were more appropriate... but I don't see quite a few of my comments. Can you tell me whee they went? I looked in the history but I stll didn't see them anywhere. I don;t doubt that they are there somewhere.... lol but I'm having a bit of trouble finding them! thanks! :) Emely1219 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not use the Talk page to express your history, your impressions of or feelings about other editors, how many times they've edited the page, and general forum-style comments. The Talk page is there for a specific purpose. Don't abuse it. The off-topic comments were removed, as per guidelines. Please read the guidelines carefully. ► RATEL ◄ 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MAIL

Can we clear this up now? I'm sure we can agree that I am who I am. As your for your other conflicts.... not much I can do about them.

So how do I know you're not a sockpuppet? lolEmely1219 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Email me, link at top of page. ► RATEL ◄ 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Myspace and Facebook pages are interesting, but prove nothing. A phone number will allow me to verify you are not a sock in less than a minute. ► RATEL ◄ 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is a phone number going to allow you to verify this? I must say, it is rather inappropriate of you to even ask such a thing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, comments such as this are inappropriate as well. Refrain from making personal attacks and harassing other users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I urgently recommend you give no one at all your phone number. And asking for a phone number is contrary to WP policy, AFAIK. Too many bad things have happened in the past for such to be a wise course of action. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

no worries, ratel is just following up on a joke I made to him in his email....I'm sure he's aware that it would be inappropriate to ask for my phone number.

Ratel, I'm sure you found the pages quite interesting, why don't you give me your phone # and we can chat, lol ;) (just kidding guys...)Emely1219 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Rjd0060 for the policy link that outlaws personal communications between editors. In the age of Facebook and Myspace, this seems ludicrous, since a cellphone number is no more personal than an email address. I also referred Rjd0060 to the history of Collect (see the RFC on his conduct), so that he may see my comment about Collect in context (I said it was ironical that Collect, whom I believe has stalked me on wikipedia, is now advising his apparent socks to avoid stalkers). ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous history of Collect (or any user) does not give you the right to act any way you please. As for the phone number issue, of course there is no "policy". I would encourage the use of common sense whenever possible, however. Nothing but a suggestion not to attempt to gain personal information is warranted at the moment. I'm not here to debate the issue with you. Maintain civility and respect towards other users, despite whatever problems they may have had in the past. This is not optional. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so no there is no reason why I should not request a phone number. Thanks for the info. ► RATEL ◄ 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

anyone up for suggesting a new policy? :P

ratel, u gnna send me ur number or not? Emely1219 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag team

Someone added that advertising again. Too tired for wiki-activism tonight. Give it a shot if you care. .froth. (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic wikipedia policies

Please abide by talk page guidelines yourself. Your recent comments on the Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) page are at best irrelevant to the subject, and some could be seen as honestly having no place there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Jon? Jon, you need to be precise when making these allegations. I regard the COI issues there as very serious and potentially very harmful to the page on DC. ► RATEL ◄ 14:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop

You're getting ready to start biting and not stop. Don't look at that talk page any more today and don't respond until you can get past someone just mentioning COI around you. There's no AGF or PA or COI or anything else, just editors trying to figure things out, just like you did. This won't be decided tonight or tomorrow, okay, so don't feel cornered. Ratels are nice, not mean. Flowanda | Talk 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right <grumble, grumble... grrrr> ► RATEL ◄ 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I know you care about the article as do 99 percent of the other editors, no matter what their stance. You've made some comments that are going to raise red flags for a while, but that's okay; just let the edits do the work and ask/trust that other editors can keep discussions and the article on track. I'm not saying I can do those things, but I can help find editors who can. :) Flowanda | Talk 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Flowanda. I'm starting to see that you care about this great project too. I love it that wikipedia is the result of the working of many minds. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Understanding issues

No, Ratel, it is you who unfortunately do not seem unfortunately to understand the issue. That website is so far removed from being anything remotely resembling an acceptable source that any material from it cannot be used. It can say whatever it likes, but if there is no evidence which meets WP:RS standards, which is the real issue here, then there is no reason to adjust content to reflect such sources. The fact that you seem to be basing your material on such a frankly spurious website doesn't really help anyone credit you either. Frankly, in all honesty, this appears to me, unfortunately, to be little more than rumor-mongering. Your earlier comments seem to make it clear that you have no acceptable sources as reason to add that material. Well, if you can't find them, then I frankly see no reason why content should be adjusted to accomodate allegations from such a frankly worthless source. So far as I can tell, dejanews.com, the true source, no longer exists, and there is no clear evidence that that website, which was apparently all it ever was, would qualify as a reliable source. The fact that you have seemed to try to dodge that issue, by saying you "didn't have time to find your sources," when you apparently had them, doesn't say particularly much about your honesty either, and it frankly makes AGF a bit harder. If you can verify that that source would meet RS standards, then by all means produce the evidence on the article talk page. If you cannot, then I have to say that the source cannot be demonstrated to be a reliable one, and that is no reason to adjust the content. The fact that the article itself contains apparent quotesfrom the offices of Copperfield and Schiffer that contradict the allegations you are making doesn't help me think any better of you either. This smacks of gossipmongering, and such conduct is not acceptable. If this is all you have to go on, then it frankly ain't enough. I stand by my previous comments, because, frankly, I now have even more reason to believe that the sole source is a rumor from a competitor, and I can't see that as being acceptable. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That source was given to you AS BACKGROUND MATERIAL (it's a convenience link to a message posted in DejaNews, originally taken from the New York Post's Page Six, no longer accessible online) to help you understand the straightforward edit I am trying to insert, and to which other admins have agreed (there's a thing called "consensus"), and which is well sourced. Nothing in the proposed edit draws directly on the backgrounder I gave you to help you grasp the situation. You apparently do not agree with the other admins. I suggest you go back, re-read the proposed edit and the sources for the edit, read also the long list of alternative sources I gave, and if after all that you still think the edit is unsourced, come back and make a comment. ► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

hey, luv ur user page, i wan wondering if u could help me spice up mine a bit EL HOMBRE.. EL MITO...LA LEYENDA (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words about my work on Heaven and Earth (book)! :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Climate Caper (book)

I have taken this discussion off the page. Please note that commenting you are expecting to see "how much more wrong" I will be in the coming weeks could be construed by some as a inappropriate comment. I, of course, assume good faith, but there are some that might not. I am sure you realize at the time I nominated the article, there were no articles. I certainly hope there are more news articles to come and the article passes the nomination. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Puplava Entry: Guru rating & global warming/cooling

First of all, thank you so much for adding an entry on Jim. Guru rating by CXO Advisory Group is outdated and out of context I just wanted to give some feedback on the "Guru Grade" you quote from CXO Advisory Group. Although this source states that it was last updated on 5/9/2008, it actually only covers the period between Feb 2002 and Oct 2005. If you look at the actual quotes CXO pulls and then tracks with the S&P 500, their "grade" is misleading. Many of the quotes pulled relate to the prices of commodities, which typically trade in different price patterns than the stock market. So using quotes about commodities and tracking their accuracy with a mostly-uncorrelated index doesn't seem quite right. Jim also tends to have a long-term perspective, so he really should be judged over a timeframe that's more applicable to his market "predictions" (long range) and his management style (long term). Certainly, his macro-calls have tended to be pretty accurate. It'd be interesting to know if CXO actually requested any performance data from Jim's asset management team to see how his money management style actually performed during the 2002-2005 period. You might want to reconsider using this source at all, or perhaps putting it in context a little more clearly. Discussion about global warming vs. cooling I think this section could be a little more even-handed. The language seems a little biased. Jim may have a perspective on global cooling vs. warming, but he does interview guests from both sides of the debate. Fsnfan (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)fsnfan 08/06/2009

Chronic bacterial prostatitis

Ratel

Unfornately, I may have some further additions to make on this subject, as I unexpectedly went down with a full-blown prostate infection last month. I tried norfloxacin for 4 weeks, but the problem returned after a week and the norflox is not having much effect at present (though only used for an extra week so far). I'll let you know progress as I might be a good research subject for a condition about which relatively little is known.

Regards

TrevorTjandspallan (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Paltridge-climate-caper.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paltridge-climate-caper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

T4

As you see, I have supported your approach to this--except for one particular. Your insertion of the photographs was not appropriate. You know as well as I where that method of "argumentation" is normally used. In dealing with zealots, responding in their own manner rarely helps. DGG (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it, David, I'm a very visual person. Nothing seemed to be getting through to the IP, so I tried images. My bad. ► RATEL ◄ 08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin, Blippy

Feel free to contribute any impressions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolls_of_Anti-Americanism Noloop (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Puplava Guru Grade Again

http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/ clearly states that the "grading" of Jim Puplava is dormant, which I think is an important fact to keep in mind. Your text states "According to a study performed prior to the 2008 financial crisis, Puplava's track record was below average, with a stock market forecasting accuracy of 41%"; if you're going to include it, you may want to more accurately state "According to a study that compared his predictions against the performance of the S&P 500 Index over the following 5, 21, 63 and 254 trading days, his market forecasting accuracy during the period 13 February 2002 to 20 October 2005 was 41%."Fsnfan (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)fsnfan

You are welcome to make that change yourself. :¬) ► RATEL ◄ 23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Euthenasia device

I went ahead and sprotected for a month. If he comes back let me know. Keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Drudge report

About this edit summary---I think the user is new to wikipedia and was/is unaware of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, you weren't reverting vandalism, you were reverting edits that were legit, in good faith, and misguided. Please remember this and this when vandal fighting. Thank you. --I dream of horses @ 02:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion of cited material without edit summaries is vandalism, by an SPA too. He went on to edit war on the same page, today. You should apologise to me for your comment. ► RATEL ◄ 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You identified somebodies' first edit as vandalism. That's, in my opinion, a bit much. Now, he goes on to leave incivil edit summaries, so I guess you were right, but still. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I looked at his history, AFAIR. ► RATEL ◄ 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Solar Cooling®

Hello Ratel,

Thank you for editing Wikipedia and making our world a better place. Just like you, I also want to make sure an encyclopedia has only objective information.

Infringement of copyrights, trademarks and other intelectual property is a serious problem!!!! A clear distinction should be made between Solar Cooling and Solar Air Conditioning!!!!

The term Solar Cooling is often used to loosely. ClimateWell owns the Solar Cooling trademark. You can check this on the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OAMI) website at http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic by searching for "Soalr Cooling" in the trade Mark Name field. This is not about advertising.

I trust that you will respect this issue and you will reverse the changes you made to the Solar Air Conditioning.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.253.78.42 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is not used here to denote a product, but rather a process. If you feel you have a case, please take it to WP:ANI. ► RATEL ◄ 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suicide bag

Just letting you know that the external links to e-books from this page, one of which you added, have been removed per a request that came in on OTRS as they were links to copyvios.

If your response to this message requires further action from me, you will need to copy it to my talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The document I linked states that copyright permissions were given, and that the material is available in various places online. Was the complaint from an identified person, or one of the many anonymous opponents of a person's right to chose to die a dignified death at a time of their chosing? ► RATEL ◄ 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an identified person who made a plausible claim of being the copyright holder of the infringing material. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the neon-john.com website makes no claim of having permission from the author. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was talking about another link. That's ok. ► RATEL ◄ 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

I have issued a 12 hour block for BLP violations and edit warring on Heaven and Earth (book). Please refrain from re-adding disputed BLP material until the matter is resolved on the talk page.--agr (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've exceeded your mandate here. You said you were going to take a break a few hours ago, now you've blocked me and another editor (an admin in fact) for transgressing a rule you made up yesterday, in a case which is anything but cut and dried. I think you're a poor admin and should be recalled asap. ► RATEL ◄ 04:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of interest, Biased "editor" agenda...? Climate change denial 350 (organisation)

Support for "International Day of Climate Action" note on October 24, 2009, related to 350 (organisation)? See link ... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009#350_.28organisation.29_.26_October_24.2C_2009

[3] Climate change denial

350 (organisation) [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.153.2 (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this noteworthy article alive: Talk:Seal the Deal! [5]

[6] Talk:Seal the Deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.153.2 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too busy, try other editors. ► RATEL ◄ 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition of verifiable links is being blocked, Why? : http://www.350.org/messengers#bianca , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/yes-we-can_b_181542.html

The addition of verifiable links is being blocked, Why? : http://www.350.org/messengers#bianca [7], http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/yes-we-can_b_181542.html [8], etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by "editor" (see SpikeToron to; aka Spike)... [9]

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrzaius#Of_interest.2C_Biased_.22editor.22_agenda....3F_Climate_change_denial see Talk:350_(organisation) edit "Some Anon's Problem" by SpikeToron to; aka Spike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.143.114 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See here for response. — Spike (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Step It Up

Would you stop removing merge tags: The proposed merge of Step It Up 2007 into Bill McKibben or 350 (organisation) was not closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Step it up is obviously a stub, just go ahead and merge it already. ► RATEL ◄ 08:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to merge it to Bill or to 350, or to delete the information entirely. If you merge it to one or the other, I'll protect the merge against further removal or link vandalism; otherwise, I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Y merged. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop spamming 350

This is so wildly inappropriate, I don't who in their right mind would add that. Stop it immediately. -Atmoz (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and wikistalking. 350 is a perfect example of climate activism. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, none of the changes your making to Tipping point (climatology) are going to stay in. So you're wasting your time. -Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:OWN? ► RATEL ◄ 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Sniff. -Atmoz (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)