User talk:Ratel/Archive 10

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)

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)

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
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

User talk:Chipdouglas
That's not a new account. It's a 4-year-old, mostly-sleeper account. Maybe you knew that already. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. There was a touch of sarcanol there. ;-) ► RATEL ◄ 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he has any connection to either CENSEI, or to Axmann8 or the latter's 3 apparent sockpuppet accounts today? User talk:Tonywalton has apparently initiated a checkuser on some of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Chipdouglas is definitely IP 24.187.* because he appeared right after the Drudge Report page was semi-protected and started harping on about 24.187.*'s issues. He may, of course, be a sock for the other editors mentioned. It would not surprise me. ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I passed that along to TonyWalton, who I gather is kind of overseeing the checkuser case. Since this reference was lost on him, I have to ask you - Are you familiar with the ca.1979 film, Animal House? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it years ago. ► RATEL ◄ 02:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Chip Diller (Kevin Bacon), a pledge to the straight-laced fraternity composed of "Greggie, Douggie, and some of the other Hitler youth." Artur Axmann was the head of the real Hitler Youth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Smart of you to spot that. Sad that these boll weevils are infesting WP. ► RATEL ◄ 03:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Artur Axmann thing? Someone else discovered that and pointed it out on ANI. As far as the "8" goes, that's unclear, although as another user pointed out, H-for-Hitler is the 8th letter of the alphabet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On your userpage you cite Dewey, Cheatem & Howe as your legal resource. You should include the equally august firm of Sue, Grabbitt and Runne. ;-) ► RATEL ◄  03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried, but they grabbed Sue and ran. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Chronic bacterial prostatitis
Any particular reason why you have deleted my two additions?

I have had chronic baterial prostatitis which has developed into chronic pelvic pain syndrome, which I am advised was most likely caused by nerve damage following the original infection; I would be surprised if I were the only person to have suffered in this way. In my opinion, it is beneficial to sufferers to know that pain subsequent to the infection might be caused in this way, so they can be referred to a pain clinic early, rather than 13 years later in my case. It also explains why antibiotics gradually fail to work on those with previous chronic bacterial prostatitis, since they subsequently only have pain and not an infection.

Doxycycline is commonly used by UK GU consultants to control chronic prostatitis.Tjandspallan (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for that, and do you know what infection would call for doxycycline? ► RATEL ◄ 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * British National Formulary website at http://www.bnf.org.uk/bnf/bnf/current/3816.htmTjandspallan (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have to find another source; that one is not accessible from outside the UK. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Pity - that was probably the most authoritative source. Try instead http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/prostatitis.htm and http://www.bsac.org.uk/pyxis/UTI/Chronic%20prostatitis/Chronic%20prostatitis.htmTjandspallan (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, those pages are riddled with errors and do not fulfil the requirements of WP:MEDRS anyway. Try here for a review study: PubMed. ► RATEL ◄ 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting source - referred to PMID 16340190 and PMID 12015017 Tjandspallan (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So what edit do you propose based on those studies? (BTW, the first one is no good, only from an unknown regional center and a primary source). If you want to say "Doxycycline (but not other tetracyclines, which are ineffective)," that is not supported by the second source. ► RATEL ◄ 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest just adding "doxycycline" to the list of antibiotics, citing the second reference if you think that is needed. On the first point I raised, I note from trawling through the PMID references that most contributors refer to chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome without distinction. This link is not clear from the current Wiki articles, nor does Wiki mention the categories of chronic prostatitis (I & II where the is proven bacterial contamination and III where there isn't). Given your expertise in these matters, would you be willing to expand the current articles to include mention of these issues? Thanks.79.66.2.231 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Using Medline, I am unable to locate a quality study supporting the use of doxycycline for chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP). In general, CBP is not caused by Chlamydia, the bug doxy is usually used to treat. See PMID 6365416 for a list of the typical bugs. ► RATEL ◄ 14:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Will report you for edit warring on the David Copperfield page. While you claim that you are seeking to report factual content, you are emphasizing the plaintiffs' allegations and minimizing or ignoring Copperfield's. Additionally, you have continually cited press releases from the plaintiffs' lawyer. And, if I'm not mistaken, you have listed directions for the public to find its way to a home where you claim Copperfield's children live--if this is so, that is a gross misuse of wikipedia. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelin7 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mistaken on all counts. I suggest you recuse yourself from further involvement with this issue on wikipedia. The more you say, the more you betray a clear conflict of interest. Please go ahead & make your report. ► RATEL ◄ 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see this edit warring on the part Ratel. He is an established editor making edits in good faith.  While it's clear you have concerns please refrain from making these comments about other editors, it's taken as an assumption of bad faith.  It is easy to make this mistake when you are new here if you feel strongly about something you consider important - I did.  I think we should all assume the article and concerns are proposed in good faith and discuss them.  (Ratel, please give Karelin the benefit of the doubt with regards to COI).  Karelin if you have COI please declare it now, this does not  preculde you from having valide concerns, but it does mean they have to be addressed carefully.


 * As this is a biography of the living I would urge caution and suggest that temporarily debated content is removed pending debate and consensus and no further edits on this are made to the article until is reached. Does this seem reasonable?  Amicaveritas (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As it's all common knowledge published in numerous sources, I suggest a RfC rather than removal. I'll stand by what that finds ... ► RATEL ◄ 09:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer
G'day Ratel. Ref Ian Plimer's article: read WP:V and you will understand why I removed these blog cites. They are not WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable sources and should not be on BLP. I could reference any number of blogs stating that Plimer is correct, but unless sourced correctly (i.e. from a reliable third party source) this would be equally be against Wikipedia policies.

Also, the title of his book is Heaven + Earth, as noted by the sources within the article and the publisher. Cheers, 165.228.93.102 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs by experts on subjects within their purview are acceptable. I suggest you read the rules a bit more closely. ► RATEL ◄ 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the rules. Please explain to me how what you say complies with [|this policy]?  Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, if you want to raise BLP issues in relation to criticism of his AGW views, we can move the book to a new page and put the critiques and praise there. Ok? ► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. Just as long as the blog cites are removed from his page, as per BLP policies, I'll be happy. Of course, if blog cites are OK for a new page on his book, that goes for both sides of this debate. Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as they are experts, no problem (although ironically Plimer is not a climate expert, but a geologist). Ha. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll disagree on what constitutes an expert ;-). I'll leave the blog cite removal job on Plimer's page to you.  Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield
No because it isn't, it's my view you seem to have some COI/Grudge/whatever and that's shown via your edits and the reports at the BLP board about your behaviour (which is where I came in) - feel free to take it to AN/I if you don't like it - obviously that will draw even more eyes (and admins too) to that article, so I'm all for it from a BLP perspective. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've told you that it is a personal attack, and another editor has independently told you. Remove it or I shall (it is permissible to remove personal attacks from talk pages.) <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 07:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It could be construed as a personal attack. You may feel the way you do, but its an unfounded accusation.  I can see no reason to insinuate COI, you should assume good faith (on both parts!). Please remove the comment and focus on policy, content and sources.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are adequate arguments on both sides to make this a worthwhile discussion. I should say that in line with [WP:BLP] contentious material should be removed and not re-instated until it has been demonstrated to comply with all Wikipedian policies. This is an established interpretation of BLP. A request could be made via dispute resolution or directly to an admin. If need be the article can be protected. Ratel as restoring editor the burden of proof lies with you. I realise you are a frustrated inclusionist, but you must prove compliance with ALL policies. There are weight concerns, neutrality concerns and BLP concerns that need to be addressed, not just the source concerns.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your comments and level-headed approach. Can you take the running on this in terms of getting further input/RfC etc? I'm rushed at the moment... Ta! <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 08:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for your forebearance - the frustartion must be extreme at times.  I hope that the outcome will result in the article being improved.  I'm rushed too, there's no time limit.  Will do what I can...Amicaveritas (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Your exchange with Collect at RSN
Hi Ratel... those of us who are regularly involved in working on policy and guideline pages havd lots of experience with Collect, and are familiar with his negative points. So you don't need to "warn" us about his behavior on other pages. In this case, he did exactly the correct thing... instead of edit warring and making a scene at the article, he looked for a neutral third party opinion by asking a question at RSN.

In fact, by immediately attacking the editor (Collect), instead of responding to his question (by commenting on the source and discussing whether you think it is reliable or not), you are the one that comes across as the stalker. I know you are pissed off at him, but I would suggest that you ignore Collect completely for a while. Let others deal with him if needed. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ratel quite clear your comments are made in good faith, but I do think the question regarding the source is valid. Even should it be decided that the source is valid, I have concerns about a single source being used in these cases (allegations made involving BLP) and anything other than the barest factual coverage being written given BLP, Weight and NPV concerns - have you considered it from this angle? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The National Enquirer and TMZ are obviously not the most reliable of sources, but here is my argument: when these sources print stories about an individual who has enormous resources to respond legally in the event that he is justified in responding (remember that Copperfield earned about $60million a year for a long time), and the alleged facts are reprinted in numerous places (newspapers, websites, blogs), and yet the individual fails to respond to the reports (even with a denial in some cases), and so the allegations/reports pass into the general currency about the individual, why then is wp not allowed to mention that these allegations are now part of the prevailing global consciousness concerning the individual? WP still remains a tertiary source; we still merely report on what others are saying, apparently without challenge from the subject. The BLP policy is not so much to protect people from what other people are printing about them as it is to protect wp from lawsuits, and clearly no lawsuit will be forthcoming on these facts, printed as they are in so many other places. Incidentally, the allegations/facts have been part of wp for years without any threats from the subject. Of course they'll be part of some future biography of this person, and then perhaps they'll be allowed in to the encyclopedia. Or maybe not. I've had people challenge me on material printed in books and biographies too.


 * As regards Collect — I shall try to ignore him from now on as advised, but I find it a pity that wp cannot slough off editors like this, who make sport of pursuing other editors to pages they habitually edit in order to provoke unpleasantness. He's done it before to me. My prediction: he'll go through any page I've recently edited and pick as many holes in the sources as he can, not to improve the page, but to irritate me. His history of this sort of confrontation-seeking is clear, yet no-one at wp takes any action to ban him indefinitely. He's very skilled at walking the line of what is allowable and wikilawyers every point skilfully ... really the most disruptive editor I've come across here in several years. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know Collect, but I can understand your POV. Regardless of his motives, if he can pick legitimate holes in articles - it will serve to improve them.  There are policies covering civility and harassment - not that they should be needed, but if he infracts these it should be dealt with accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicaveritas (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * History regarding Collect is noted. Disruption by any editor is not acceptable.  However he does raise points for consideration as do you and the history doesn't automatically make them invalid.Amicaveritas (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your points above. They would seem more relevant to journalism than research for an encyclopedia.  I'm not convinced either way on the reliability of the source but I am reluctant to include anything considered potentially contentious in BLP where it is the only cited source.  Regardless of the source I have noted in other sources reported comments that favour Copperfield.  I may not like the comments or the allegations but they are this stage only allegations.  My view is that this should be covered very lightly, briefly and neutrally.  With BLP it's not enough just to report from sources whether they are reliable or not.  Your thoughts? Amicaveritas (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that the BLP policy (and spirit of the policy) exist to prevent undue harm being caused to the living as well as provide protection legally. Amicaveritas (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint on David Copperfield (illusionist)
The 3RR case is being closed with a warning. You have been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. You may be blocked without further notice if you insert negative material about Copperfield before getting consensus that it is OK under WP:BLP. Consensus should be obtained on the article talk page even if you conclude that you are justified based on statements made at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, point taken, I'll wait for some sort of decision on the various noticeboards. I can't really rely on consensus on the Talk page (2 editors there have admitted COI issues, and a third is trying to annoy me deliberately). It's a tad disappointing to see so little input on these boards though, I must say, from more experienced people especially. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are hoping to convince the other editors at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) to support your wording you should try to moderate your language and not suggest that others have poor understanding, especially when your own adherence to WP:BLP can be questioned. If you think that the article is being skewed by the participation of COI-affected editors, you should either offer specific evidence of that or stop making those charges. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "specific evidence" of the skewing of their editing by virtue of their involvement is obvious. They are using their numbers to exclude published and well sourced information about Copperfield from the article, as I have shown repeatedly with lists of sources. This is ridiculous. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratel, it's not ridiculous. Objections have been raised on both sides.  Each side has valid arguments for their view.  Personally I'm not for excluding all information.  I'd just like my concerns addressed. In the absence of consensus any edits are liable for reversion and there is the risk of edit warring - which should be avoided. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your username
Mustelidae for the win! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratels are special. They are some of the toughest critters on Mother Nature's little green dirtball. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like a somewhat scaled-down wolverine. They both make good pets, I'm sure. Speaking of dangerous characters, don't forget their French cousin, the Ratelle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?
You seem to making a large number of changes at David Copperfield (illusionist). Can you clarify whether you think you have consensus support on the Talk page for these changes? If so, can you point to where these items were discussed? EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the changes are under discussion in the current RFC, and the sourcing for my changes are absolutely RS. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No they are not - one was a gossip column with no named editor - your edits have made the article progressively worse - between you and DCMagic, you have turn the article into a battleground. If you think, as you have just suggested on my talkpage, that people are going to be asking permission to remove your POV slants, you are dreaming. I am busy this morning but will be making a report to AN/I later asking that a topic ban be put in place on your edits there - at the very least you need close monitoring. BLP isn't a joke and we aren't running a tabloid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already discussed your edits with an admin. You have made errors, malformed the article, removed consensus edits, used profanity in summaries ... the list goes on. We'll see what happens. Go ahead and report me, sonny. I have done nothing wrong and my edits will speak for themselves. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 07:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are pushing 3RR. This may sometimes happen inadvertently, if someone is working on several different areas of a large article. Be aware that if it's reported at WP:AN3 all reverts will be counted. Slowing down wouldn't hurt. You seem to feel that you don't need to earn the support of others on the Talk page for what you're doing, and that may eventually work against you. Sourcing is not enough; to satisfy weight concerns in a BLP article you need consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm taking a break anyway due to work commitments. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Reverts at 3:03, 4:21, 4:55 and 5:30 (UTC). As you know I'm concerned that you don't appear to be sincerely trying to work for consensus. I've been watching this article due to a previous 3RR complaint involving BLP concerns, which led to a warning for Ratel. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If other admins wish to review the block, please look at the Coperfield-related discussion above on the current page, as well User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean this is not really a 3RR block? Please be plain. None of my edits to the Copperfield page were outside guidelines, and you are being amazingly tolerant of editors who have SPA accounts with blatant COI issues (basically, friends and lawyers of Copperfield's). <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 17:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

unblock|1=If you look closely, you'll see that the "revert" at 5:30 was not a revert, but a response to another editors concerns. A sentence was removed, the reason given that it was unsourced (he stated "Deleted unsourced assertions"). I found the correct source and replaced the sentence, with the source. The text I replaced was then allowed to stand by the other editor. This is normal, bread-and-butter editing. diff Please unblock, thanks.}}

Collect
As a participant in the RfC, this is to inform you that Brendan19 has recently filed a request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration
 * Arbitration guide

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

blocked
Given this outlook of yours, it is likely that you have no plans to meaningfully abide by en.Wikipedia's policies as to the biographies of living persons and hence your edits are a risk to the project. I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. This is not forever. If you undertake to carefully follow the project's BLP policies and further, agree not to edit war, you may be unblocked. See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I've also deleted User:Ratel/material4inclusion as CSD G10, negative, unreliably sourced BLP content. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to offer diffs of my actions or edits which show a lack of neutrality towards User:Collect or you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, Gwen, I quoted another editor above about your friendship with Collect. He's always buttering you up on your talk page, with lots of friendly return repartee from you, and I'm not the only one who has noticed. If the cap fits, etc. This has nothing to do with lifting the block. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give some diffs which show my actions have not been neutral towards Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, keeping unreliably sourced negative BLP content anywhere on-wiki is a violation of WP:BLP. Saying I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer can and should be taken as straightforward way of saying you plan on blowing off WP:BLP. Truth be told, I agree with you that some celeb articles are far too fawning but you must abide by the rules here, BLP has more sway than any other policy on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I regret if that statement of mine was interpreted as an INTENTION TO SUBVERT the BLP policy. It was not meant as such. Let me rephrase to add the phrase "...within the limits imposed by Jimbo's BLP policy". <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please think about this a bit more. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to know if the allegation about User:Collect is true. Even a cursory inspection suggests that this is a problem user. Gwen, is it true that you are 'friends' with this user?  If that is so, isn't that a conflict of interest. Peter Damian (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being friendly with most editors who post on my talk page and send me emails is not a conflict of interest. If there are diffs showing my actions (or even content edits) have not been neutral as to Collect, I'd like very much to see them, because I can't recall any and yes, Collect is a worrisome editor who has been edit warring in a most nettlesome way for many months now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you need to cut this defiance stuff and give believable commitment about your respect for BLP. The comments you made give wikipedia admins prima facie evidence that you will and indeed intend to violate the spirit and word of WP:BLP. BLP is a high-stake issue for admins at wikipedia, so your current approach to this block (attacking Gwen's integrity and minimizing the seriousness of your comments) won't get you anything except more time in your block perhaps along with a worse reputation. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deacon, my comments relate to the inclusion of the report by TMZ, not adjudged an unreliable source, that were excluded from the David Copperfield page (after being there for a long time, BTW). The TMZ report was discussed at the RS noticeboard and opinion was divided. The report was very thorough, including PDFs of printouts Copperfield gave his employees giving them detailed instructions on how to pick up women for his pleasure. It also included a letter from Copperfield's lawyers to the employees warning them about discussing any of the things they did while in his employ. This report looks and smells reliable, and indeed, TMZ has not been adjudged unreliable, nor did Copperfield sue (a sure sgn it was an accurate report). The report was reprinted on hundreds of websites and newspapers. Now I still feel this report should go onto the Copperfield page. The only reason it cannot go on is consensus, which I do not have. I am opposed by people who work for Copperfield, in the main. You should see my comments in the light of this argument. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄  14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to know if his allegation is true. I have read his unblock request, and that seems prima facie reasonable.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gossip sites and mags are entertainment outlets, PDFs can be forged and private memos can be published wholly out of context (I happen to know lots of LA celebs have standing orders to their employees about the kinds of girls to look out for and how to lure them in, which is legal behaviour in itself, Hollywood has been awash in all kinds of sex since the 1910s, it's a swath of the pith, though I don't know anything about DC's behaviour along those lines, if any). This said, I believe Ratel's claim of being thwarted by employees of the celeb. As for the assertion that the lack of a lawsuit means the allegations are true, that's original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish WP had a list of sites that can be considered RS and those that are not. TMZ is used as a source on a number of pages (eg. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears) for data that is not complimentary. Used there, it is apparently okey-dokey, but not on the highly litigious Mr Copperfield's page. I have a suspicion that this guy has contacted WP via his lawyers already. That's the only possible reason I'm getting this kind of heat. If anyone wants me to drop this issue because something has happened that cannot be openly discussed, please email me. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything like that. I came here owing to the thread at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Gossip sites are handy, maybe, for hints as to what one might look for elsewhere but they are not reliable enough to cite in a tertiary reference encyclopedia like en.Wikipedia (unless they are cited in topics about gossip sites and mags themselves) and do not meet the level of heed put forth at WP:BLP. If they've shown up in other articles they may not belong there either and see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I still think your post about taking delight with putting negative content into celeb BLPs because of what you think about celebs altogether shows a worrisome lack of neutrality and a risk to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gwen, my motivations should not matter as long as I follow protocol. That I've done. Banning me for expressing my feelings because you suspect that one day I may edit something untoward onto a page is not fair. Ban me when (and if) I ever commit that crime. As Collect pointed out elsewhere, I defended Bill Moyers against people who were trying to insert non-BLP data, so I do see both sides of the coin. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP is always a worry but we're not talking about crimes here. As I strongly hinted in the block notice, this block need not last long at all. Please forgive me for asking, but have you read WP:BLP? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it well, and it's very conservative because of the legal implications. I realise that. And I realise that in the Copperfield case I simply don't have the consensus or sources to act. However, I await the inevitable publication of a tell-all biography on Mr Copperfield. That should make for some very interesting reading and a great source. I'll be patient. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, please hang on a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, a published "tattle-tale" bio in itself may or may not be taken as reliable enough for a BLP (or sometimes a BDP, if the source is very weak/sloppy, which tattle-tale books often are). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism
The only rational view - glad you enjoyed my Moses point. I do agree, at least in principle, with some of the points you raise about celebrity; I'm just coinvinced Biographies of the Living on Wikipedia is not the right forum. That said, I certainly don't want BLs whitewashed - but I do want NPV maintained, especially where allegations are concerned. While there may not be smoke without fire, I'm not in favour of trial by media; all are innocent until proven guilty - not probably guilty until proven innocent. Simply stepping into the public eye does not mitigate that (and should not mitigate that). We have to have faith in our justice system or work to change it. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you say, TruthLover. You are one of the few really neutral editors on that page. I try to be neutral as regards BLPs, as much as I can anyway, until I start seeing whitewashing by apparatchiks and numerous unchallenged negative media reports that line up pointing to the same thing (I won't list them here, since this is a wikipedia-owned page and these links are considered non-RS). But I think you know whereof I speak. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 08:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)