User talk:RattBoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 12 June 2008 T 21:05 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P==Cuyahoga River== I've noticed that there are things that could be added to the Cuyahoga River page, including more about the historical significance of the river and expanded prose on its ecology. Any recommendations that you can make will be much more than welcome. Avogadro94 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letchworth State Park

Hi RattBoy, I just noticed your nice winter photographs of two of the falls in the Letchworth State Park. But why did you upload your photos just to the English edition of the Wikipedia and not to the Commons? This would allow these pictures also to be used from other Wikipedia projects. You will find in the Commons an already existing small collection of photographs in the Commons category for the Letchworth State Park. It would be nice to see your pictures there as well. Regards, AFBorchert 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on Michael Bray

Thanks for the addition on Michael Bray. I have been mostly working on getting the best links in place than writing the bio. -- Pinktulip 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starr Report

RattBoy: "...you erroneously implied that Bill Clinton had something to do with "anal oral contact," although no reputable references would back you up on that."

Wikiepdia Article:

Under oath she admitted that her relationship with Clinton involved oral sex, including oral-anal contact, as documented in the Starr report

I'll be waiting for your apology. Haizum 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asbestos

This needs a lot of help. For starters, there is NO legitimate medical controversy about the dangers of asbestos. None. The "Junk Science' boys have made outrageous claims, but the fact is that medical science has documented the direct links between asbestos and mesothelioma (from which my father died in 1986), otehr cancers and asbestosis . Your comments were very appropriate - it looks like a rant for tort reform. Would you help clean it up? Please? \MollyBloom 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for wikifying "Steven Milloy". I have also changed asbestos and the law to a legitimate article, on international regulations, a NPOV discussion of the litigation and the legitimate issues at controversy in the litigation, and examles of the findings from discovery re Johns-Mansville, etc.jgwlaw 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks. It is against WP to delete edits, characterizing them as "unsupported dogma."

MSTCrow 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Crow, the page that you refer to says nothing about the phrase, "unsupported dogma." I said nothing about you, personally. Therefore, my edit was nothing like a "personal attack."--RattBoy 10:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR mediation

Hi. User:MSTCrow has requested a mediation at Talk:National Public Radio. It would be very helpful if you could participate. Cheers! David L Rattigan 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asbestos

RattBoy, I thought you might be intereseted in how I have rewritten asbestos, and asbestos and the law. Nobody has vandalized this, presumably because I have solid references and there is not a lot they can do, I wouldn't think. The article on 'asbestos and the law' is now a real article on regulation in various countries and the issues involved in the litigation (and there are some legitimate issues)...I have included an paragraph by the ABA that is a reasonable way of reducing the volume of court cases while protecting the rights of those who were exposed to asbestos but not yet ill. It seems that FRCP11 may have lost a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 motion for frivolous lawsuit, and is bitter, given his hysteria about lawsuitsjgwlaw 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your quote

The sentence, "Many attorneys, including Peter Angelos, have become rich because they established lucrative relationships with unions that steered potential asbestos plaintiffs to their law firms." is very one-sided. For some reason, in our system of Free Enterprise, apparently it's okay for anyone to seek to improve their standard of living--except attorneys and members of labor unions. (The reference doesn't back up the phrase "many attorneys," but I'll let that go for now.) There was no comparison of the lawyers' wealth to the wealth of execs from asbestos corporations which had hidden the dangers of asbestos. I attempted some balance by noting that companies have saved $$millions by filing Chapter 11--and thus backing out on their commitment to their employees.--RattBoy 10:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

DANGED GOOD OBSERVATION. However, the entire article has been revamped now, to be informative and not a 'tort reform' rant. (I am not a wealthy asbestos lawyer, but I sure don't begrudge them their earnings) jgwlaw 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asbestos and the Law

The article has been rewritten. Now I am trying to properly cite all the references in the proper format, and add the list of references at the bottom. Is there any way you can help out with this? I have started it and done a few. I'd really appreciate it!jgwlaw 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Message

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - MSTCrow 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Crow. I assure you that I will give your warning the seriousness that it deserves. Now I invite you to begin doing something constructive with Wikipedia. You can begin by not issuing bogus "warnings" to serious editors whose only offense is disagreement with your agenda.--RattBoy 11:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Spitzer

Hi Rattboy, I'm new to Wikipedia and figuring things out. It looks like this is were I would 'talk' to you about your editing and justification for the Eliot Spitzer page. If not, I apologize and let me know where to do appropriately. It seems you are doing a lot of political posting, not that there is anything wrong with it. Can you explain what you mean by BankruptcyMisconduct.com is not verifyable? Also, it appears that you have not given the other articles an actual read, because they do contain either facts or quotes which support the points made in the post. I certainly that that you won't delete the entire paragraph as you have in the past. The paragraph has many points which no resonalbe reporter would dispute. Granted, Spitzer has had big success with many huge prosecutions, but the Wiki page reads like a campaign brochure without any mention of the well known relevent controversies. Don't worry, Spitzer is going to win regardless, but an accurate reflection of history deserves to be on his page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.199.252 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 November 2006

Hi, 70. I have no problem with your posting here, but your comments would be better placed in Talk:Eliot Spitzer, where others who might wish to edit the page will see the discussion.
I encourage you to sign your posts. Just type four tildes (~) at the end of your post. That will not only give your post your signature, but also a time-stamp. I also encourage you to register with the site. People will give more credibility to an editor who has registered, and who thus does not post anonymously.--RattBoy 13:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causing edit wars

Around the end of October, you started an edit war in Rush Limbaugh, insisting that your own POV should be presented over the Michael J Fox incident, then littered the article with links. Now you're doing it to Cigar. I've repeatedly laid out of the facts and pointed you towards answer, but nothing seems to satisfy you. You need to stop your trollery NOW. Frotz661 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand the rules of reasoned debate, my friend. You think you have pointed me towards an answer, but your mode of argument wouldn't get you to the second round in a Middle School debating contest.--RattBoy 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limbaugh

Kudos for fighting the good fight on that page. As you've no doubt noticed, the page has been overrun by the I Love And Worship Rush Limbaugh Fan Club, who are twisting themselves into partisan pretzels trying to excise anything from the page that casts their dear leader in a less than than hagiographic aura. Thanks to these flunkies, the page is an unmitigaged disaster.

Anyway, thanks for providing facts, and backing them up with sources. Eleemosynary 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on Rush Limbaugh Page

Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the Chelsea Clinton incident? It is now under mediation. Eleemosynary 05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I should be able to find some time over the weekend for this. Stay tuned.--RattBoy 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cigars

Hey, I ran across User:Frotz661's removal of your health effects section on the Cigar article while doing a vandalism sweep. Your edit appears to be very well researched and not deserving of removal. Additionally, there was no consensus to remove it, either. After reading all the comments on the talk page, I moved your section to Health effects of tobacco smoking, and added a much shortened blurb form of it to the Cigar page with a "Main article:" template. IMO this meets everyone's concerns pretty well. Thanks for your very well researched contributions to WP! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The continual blanking, without any rational justification, has been counterproductive. I trust that your contribution will convince all concerned to accept the compromise and move on.--RattBoy 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)