User talk:Ratel/Archive 1

Olbermann
I have no problem with your description of Olbermann. I was just trying to find common ground between the old description of Olbermann as a "liberal activist" and something more reasonable. Bill Oaf 04:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoonoses and health article
I've added some areas on the talk page, you'll see them anyway. One that I want to mention, I changed the title, that's explained on the talk page. Mostly because the original title was a problem for linking. I'm still not happy, but at least its working for now. See talk page to discuss. Also I've added a request for a section on Talk:Sexually transmitted disease too, as well as a few other things I'm hoping you can fix or add to the article. FT2 (Talk 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of a libel site into the Talk:Matt Drudge page
You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. I have not removed the link yet. First I wanted to question you about whether you primarily objected to my comment right after the old (now nonfunctional) link in your message. If you object to that, I will move it to its own section as well as removing the new link. If you feel I am incorrect in removing this link, we can proceed with arbitation, but WP:BLP specifically requires the removal of this NEW link. (I have not removed the old link as it is now nonfunctional. Caper13 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done no such thing. I simply put the same link back in its unmasked form. You have no right to accost me for maintaining a link that has been there for weeks. Skoppensboer 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The da.ru link was simply a forwarding service, and the geocities site only links to existing articles on the internet, and cannot be judged defamatory per se. IMO, none of the sites it links to are prima facie defamatory either. Skoppensboer 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason I didnt delete the original link earlier was because it stopped working. If it was working, I would have deleted it. You didnt answer my question above. The link is going to be reverted back to the nonworking one (or the link itself will be removed entirely if you prefer). Do you have a problem with my comment as well. If so, I will move my comment to another section. If not I will leave it, but I am giving you the courtesy of expressing your preference before I do. Caper13 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please first explain to me why you have the right to edit my discussion posts, and what power or status you have at WP, that I do not have, that gives you the right to take this tone with me. Skoppensboer 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP. Considering you are in direct violation of one of the Official Policies of Wikipedia, and we have already discussed this issue in the past, I think my actions show remarkable tolerance. I am not intending to convey a tone that is meant to be insulting, and if you get that from this, then I apologise but this issue isnt negotiable. Your entry has already been reverted by someone else for the same reasons so this discussion is now moot except for my initial question. Do you object to my comment appearing within your message, or not. If you don't want to answer it, I'll move on. Caper13 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I do object. And I also object to a reversion of a change I made solely to maintain an existing link that had already stood for some time. Removing that link makes the entire discussion in that section somewhat meaningless. Skoppensboer 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved my quote outside yours as you requested. Your reinsertion of the libel website has been removed. You are now edit warring and are in danger of violating 3RR. If you revert again I will file a report. Caper13 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. Caper13 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Matt Drudge
Please refrain from using edit summaries as a tool to politically taunt other editors. There is such a thing as being a "sore winner", and I have been seeing a lot of it on Wikipedia lately. WP is not the place for it, and WP edit summaries are certainly not the vehicle for them. - Crockspot 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's your interpretation. I'm just bantering with another editor, one who reverts a version to which nobody has an objection, purely on idealogical and personal dislike grounds. It's interesting that you support his actions implicitly. Skoppensboer 18:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you characterize my comment about your misuse of edit summaries as implicit support of another editor. If that were the case, I would have simply reverted you. Edit summaries are for the explanation of edits, not for passing messages or banter. Just accept my comments at face value, and don't turn it into a personal attack, or a lack of assuming good faith. - Crockspot 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did see that you were even-handed with the reversion. Good show. Skoppensboer 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote the paragraph that is at dispute, and I'm not really sure why it is in dispute. Crockspot 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither am I. Perhaps it's because people are venting their frustrations on WP. It's not a happy time, even for the winners. Skoppensboer 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Courtesy note: - I've archived the debate from Talk:Zoophilia now, sicne it seems to be dormant or closed. FT2 (Talk 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I wondered if you would wish to take a look at my article contributions and project contributions pages, when I said I was active on a range of other (including controversial) articles as well. My article and project contributions are both viewable, linked from there. It's more so you can understand for yourself what I meant, than for anything else. It might help put my relatively minor work on controversial articles into perspective, so that we can work better together if we find ourselves co-editing on any other pages.


 * In the meantime, yes, I agree - we did end up doing some very good work on the health article. I'm quite pleased for both of us with it, and thank you for allowing it to be a collaboration once we did get going on a new article which didn't have the same focus and without space constraints. You wrote a lot of good copy there, it's ended up solid, focussed, helpful, and well cited. Its an article to rightly be proud of. Thank you for the work that you put in, once it got onto a good path. And I hope you your future additions will be many, enjoyable, rewarding -- and somewhat less confrontationally stressful :) FT2 (Talk 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see you are very busy here, contributing a lot, must take a lot of time! Yep, it's all good, no hard feelings, article is a very nice read. Keep up the good work, and thanks for helping me to flesh out the safety issues on that page. I have it on my watch list so vandals should be manageable. Skopp   ( Talk )  01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

email
Can you add (and validate) an email address for your account?

An email address provided is not revealed to others, but allows them to send you messages via an "email this user" page at Special:Emailuser/Skoppensboer.

Many thanks. FT2 (Talk 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment?
Comment at: Talk:Zoophilia and health FT2 (Talk 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during December 22 2006 (UTC) to James Howard Kunstler
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no nonsense other than what G-Man added. You need to update your knowledge of vandalism. Skopp   ( Talk )  02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The link was added by you, according to page history. I followed the link, and it comes out to a blog filled with POV. Please do not reinsert the link without discussing it on the articles talk page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! The section is all about criticism of the subject and what people are saying about him! POV is the only appropriate content there. Please. Skopp   ( Talk )  20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, the article is balanced unfairly, with the greater balance towards the criticisms. I'd suggest working more on equaling out both sides. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Other editors are inserting glowing remarks. Please, go bug someone else. Skopp   ( Talk )  23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Allergens and saliva
Good citation; I have reworked slightly the allergens section to reflect your edit summary and the cited paper. Changes made are slight, as follows: FT2 (Talk 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cite both statements, that reactions can occur to saliva and semen, to their sources, as well as a separate cite that this can lead to anaphylactic reaction.
 * 2) Add and cite your new paper, that although dander is most commonly discussed, saliva is in fact more potent in allergenicity to reactive/sensitized/allergic individuals. This puts saliva allergenicity in a more familiar and known context, for readers who may be allergic.

Uncivil
If you continue your incivil and disprutive behavior in discussion on talk pages, editing articles and even statements used in edit summaries, I, or another administrator will block you for such actions. Converstions may get heated but remeber be cool and civil and things will go alot better. thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you approve of the wording by user crockspot towards me? Have you issued him with a similar warning? To remind you, he used the term "bullshit" in reference to an edit of mine (an edit he has now accepted with slight modifications), he talked about "having a full bladder" for a "pissing contest" with me, and so on. This sort of swaggering and school yard braggadocio lowers the tone of WP and should not be allowed to pass uncommented. Let's see some even handedness, for goodness sake. Skopp   ( Talk )  17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop mischaracarizing my acceptance of your statement. I asked for sources and neutrality. You finally provided it, after much kicking and screaming. I also admitted in my complaint that I became uncivil with you myself and expressed regret for it. Perhaps you could learn a little bit about honesty and humility from that. And there is nothing in the WP rules about using swear words, outside of the incivility aspects. - Crockspot 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will look into that as well. Trust me, it is nothing personal against you, i myself have gotten heated and it always helps to have a reminder to cool down a bit. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, point taken. I guess the knee-jerk reversion sans discussion, coupled with the word "bullshit" set me off. Sorry about that. Skopp   ( Talk )  17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Rkevins 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I kindly ask that, when in an edit dispute, most recently Matt Drudge with this edit, that you do not use an automated rollback tool to revert good faith changes made based on another editors concerns. If you feel you must revert these changes, please leave a clear edit sumamry explaiing your actions and feel free to open a discussion regarding it on the articles talk page.  Assuming good faith is an important part of wikipedia. Thanks!!!! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information from your userpage
Hello, I recently removed content from your userpage (diff) that was found to be in violation of WP:BLP in the Matt Drudge article. That information cannot be moved to your userspace as it is still in violation of the WP:BLP. Thank you.--RWR8189 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That aspect didn't even occur to me. Skopp, if you want to track those edits, just use the URL to the diffs. I don't think there would be anything improper in that. - Crockspot 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing libellous about that data. Do not remove it again. Skopp   ( Talk )  21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll probably get blocked for that revert. And it won't have anything to do with me. Good luck. I'm out of here. - Crockspot 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then let them block me. This is an absurd system. I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the childish harrassment and unreasonable attacks. Skopp   ( Talk )  22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this incident to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.--RWR8189 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, let's see just how rotten this system is. To say that my edit was blocked for WP:BLP is specious in the extreme, since only one editor found it to be so. BTW, love the big photo of Ronald Reagan on your user page. Not subtle or anything, are we? LOL. Skopp   ( Talk )  22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism to User Page of another editor
WP:BLP states: unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages that is the rational I am acting under, and will continue to act under until told otherwise by an administrator.--RWR8189 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not unsourced, or contentious. It's his own words from a mp3 you can listen to. Get a life. You've reverted about 4/5 times now, breaking all the rules, dammit. Skopp  ( Talk )  23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A direct link is needed to the content, it must be directly attributable, and edits made in good faith under BLP are not subject to WP:3RR.--RWR8189 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hombre, this is not CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL. I'm not bringing up his closet homosexuality or anything. Skopp   ( Talk )  23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And now there is a direct link too. Skopp   ( Talk )  00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave me out of this
You feel the need to attack and misrepresent instead of debate. Yes, on my user page I have Richard Nixon as underapreciated (that makes sense, because no one appreciates him), possibly for reasons you haven't thought of (he implemented Affirmative Action for federal contractors, created the EPA, worked to extricate the United States from Vietnam, and wrote a series of excellent books after his presidency). Also, he was not impeached, just to correct the facts.

He is listed along with Theodore Roosevelt (who was a Republican, reformer, and Bull Moose candidate), Nobel Peace Prize winner, extraordinary author, and a person who redefined American politics; Republican Senator Robert A. Taft, who sought to curb the authority of unions in landmark legislation and excorciated the Nuremburg trials on a constitutional basis, earning him a place in Profiles in Courage and one of five senators to be honored as the top five ever; Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, who vociferously opposed Joe McCarthy's excesses, fought for national defense, supported measures against Communism; Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who advised four successive presidential administraitons, published well-received academic pieces, and added a different perspective on poverty; and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who has consistently demonstrated his independence and fought for causes across the political spectrum.

If you want to paint someone as a blind ideologue, look elsewhere. If you want to impugn my motives, find something better than the politicians I think are underappreciated. And get the facts right. Now, I'll get back to arguing the points on the article. I welcome you to do the same. Rkevins 03:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad defence, Rkevins. At least you seem to have some genuine and thought out beliefs, although the current direction of Conservatism (neo-conservatism?) has led America into very troubled waters. And on issues like Global Warming, a 180-deg turn is needed. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Drudge and Global Warming: What do you think of this edit?
''I think this removes anything that could be construed as non-neutral POV-wise. What do you think?''

Drudge has taken a skeptical view of global warming. On February 25, 2007, Drudge stated during his radio broadcast that the science of global warming is "faux science" and that "the greening of our population, the falling for the science ... is making me nervous." His position is at odds with the published opinions of the IPCC.


 * Yes, very neutral, I like it, please insert it under your name, which is less likely to cause waves. Thanks. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do.K. Scott Bailey 05:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Let the fireworks begin. K. Scott Bailey 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've got to take a break from this now, real life beckons... Skopp   ( Talk )  11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Drudge
Skopp, please stop. You'll end up blocked if you push this. I really don't want that. - Crockspot 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RfC is the way. It is not libellous and has been on the page for some time. Skopp   ( Talk )  02:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation (2)
My apprehensions regarding bias, original research, exaggeration for effect, and NPOV issues, remain both an active concern to me, and also impact on the articles we edit in common.

I had hoped that with Zoophilia and health we were beyond that and you had understood 1) these approaches are not appropriate, 2) I am editing collaboratively and reasonably provided research is good and policies/guidelines are adhered to. But this doesn't seem to be the case, we're back at square 1.

A brief look at your talk page (above) and others comments suggests also that I am not the only editor, nor is this the only page, to have concerns that your editing approach is of concern.

Do you think mediation on these areas and others we have disagreed, would be useful? Would you elect for mediation or reject it, if asked?

Thanks. FT2 (Talk 04:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your idea of collaboration is to reverse any edit that does not suit your clearly slanted view on the issues. I am not interested in mediation since it as unproductive last time. I suggest you drop this issue. Skopp   ( Talk )  04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Untrue. This has been responded to some time ago with details (on the relevant talk pages). Would you be willing to reconsider this? Let me know? FT2 (Talk 04:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Libby
Are you aware that there is an open arbitration case about adding jewish info to the Libby article? You sort of stepped into the middle of it. You might consider reverting your edits before you get yourself dragged into it. Libby has never publicly self-identified as a jew, and I believe that the committee is inclined to extend the category requirements in WP:BLP to article content. - Crockspot 05:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That case has been open and unresolved for a very long time and recently an unimpeachable source (his roommate) was uncovered (see the Libby talk page). It's clearly important given his dealings with Israel on behalf of the US, so it should be in there. It's not a negative reflection on Libby in any way. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The case has actually been quite active in the past week (see workshop and proposed decision), and his roommate is not him. The standard is public self-identification. But hey, don't let me stand in your way. Forge right ahead. - Crockspot 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Drudge RfC
The purpose of an RfC is to allow editors who are not normally involved with the article a chance to express their opinion. It's really improper for you to badger every respondent. I also take issue with your personal attack against me in your reply to the question. . Concentrate on the content, not the contributors. You really should know this by now. - Crockspot 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Skopp, I don't want to jump on you here, but I am really baffled by your position. So you are this passionate that Wikipedia needs to expose Drudge as being a gay conservative?  Wikipedia is the only possible forum for exposing hypocrisy???
 * Like it or not, the people signing the checks for Wikipedia are very concerned about libel issues when it comes to living persons. Since Drudge has not been confirmed as being homosexual by multiple reliable sources (a single biography is not sufficient), Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about leaving that out of the article.
 * As to the external link, WP policy is less clear. But I still feel it is too risky, and for no real benefit.  I just don't see the point.  Do you really think that by adding this article as a footnote in Wikipedia, a whole bunch of people are going to change their political opinions??  I just don't see it happening...
 * The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not the forum for exposing hypocrisy. The article is fairly well-balanced, in my opinion.  It definitely does not give Drudge a free pass, but it lets people make up their own minds.  That is the essence of WP:NPOV.  The article could use some work, I think, but it's not a Drudge fan site by any means! --Jaysweet 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The libel issue is a red herring. Any potential libel action would have occurred when the Brock book was published, or when Jeanette Walls outed Drudge is her book ... WP is simply not at risk here (I have a libel lawyer in the family, so trust me on this). Skopp   ( Talk )  00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as the lack of a denial is not a confirmation, the fact that he didn't sue anyone yet doesn't mean he can't. The logic of your statement is flawed. - Crockspot 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Drudge won't be suing because Brock has the emails he sent and took legal advice before publication of his book. And Walls wasn't sued because her interview with Drudge's ex-lover, David Cohen, is real and verifiable, and Drudge knows it. Good heavens, even David Cohen himself, just a member of the public with limited resources (a landscaper) faced no legal consequences for his claims. That should tell you something, if you had an attentive brain. Skopp   ( Talk )  00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the Drudge page. Congrats on making some very compelling arguments, and seeing right through Crockspot's antics.  Sorry it took me so long to reply. --Eleemosynary 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do either one of you know the meaning of the word civility? - Crockspot 03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering your latest stream of personal attacks, for you to ask that question is laughable. --Eleemosynary 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Skopp, TBeatty has censored some of your comments on the Drudge page, incorrectly (as always) citing BLP as the reason. You may want to stop by and restore them.  Check the page history for the diffs. --Eleemosynary 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I did see that, and AFAIK they are now restored. Skopp   ( Talk )  11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Moyers
You already learned in the Editor and Publisher debacle that a url is not required for a citation. Do not remove complete citation information just because a link is temporarily down. It's even more disingenuous for you to then remove the material as unsourced. It's very obvious you're going through my edits to harass me. - Crockspot 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Got the Moyers link from the discussion page, and was unpleasantly surprised to see you up to your old tricks there too. But I'm not harrassing you, Crock, I'm just another chihuahua. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that comment didn't refer to you. You didn't follow me to the Drudge article. Two other editors did. And can we cut the old tricks crap? There's quite a difference between an op ed that calls someone a nasty faggot, and the neutral presentation of a notable tv person criticizing someone, with numerous secondary sources. If you have a problem with me, file a user conduct RfC. I would love to get you into a venue like that, and start comparing diffs. I'm getting tired of your incivility, your personal attacks, and your lack of assumption of good faith. I'm pretty sure I could get some serious sanctions against you, if I gave enough of a crap to put in the effort. - Crockspot 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You sure have a lot of spare time for this stuff. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You happened to catch me in the middle of RC patrolling, so I see these edits as soon as they are made. Somebody has to watch over Wikipedia while you're on the loose. - Crockspot 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attack by Crockspot noted. --Eleemosynary 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your last two edits. I thought the discussion was to pare that down to a minimum, so I removed some of the factual data, and now you are adding in quotes... Also, the .10 reading may not be proper to include. He blew a .10 at the traffic stop (the legal limit is .08), but in Vermont, roadside tests are not admissible in court, so by the time they got back to the station for another test, he blew below the limit (don't remember the exact number), and that is the reason that the charges were reduced. You inserting that figure puts Moyers in the worst possible light, and seems to run counter to your previous comments. So I'm confused. I'm going to revert and copy this message to the talk page. - Crockspot 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Capsaicin
Dubious claims of capsaicin being "extremely dangerous" (it's rated mildly to moderately toxic) aside, Wikipedia shouldn't disclaim things in the middle of articles. It's sloppy and unnecessary; I don't ever recall seeing health disclaimers in the middle of any other encyclopedia. People who want the health effects should consult the capsaicin article for them; or better yet, see a real health professional. If we disclaimed everything that was potentially dangerous, addictive, or unhealthy, every article would be virtually nothing but warnings. --Xanzzibar 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pure capsaicin is a highly hazardous material, handled only in Hazmat suits. It can kill. It can blister bare skin. The reference to pure capsaicin in the middle of an article on food (chilli peppers and their Scoville rating) may mislead people into thinking it is less harmful than it actually is. But if you're dead set against the hazard sign, go ahead and remove it. Skopp   ( Talk )  06:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)