Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 17 January 2021

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Assisted Death in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing—Assisted Death in the United States—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Suicide bag

I have trouble with this edit, but I think we have an 1RR-restriction there. Could you please take a look? The Banner talk 17:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful

Hi Ratel, I mentioned you in the talk page of the CPPS article and requested your input. Thanks, Thomas pow s (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Martin Armstrong

Please see this. -- GreenC 17:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your write up of Martin Armstrong continues to mischaracterize what really happened in this case. Instead of obtaining the real and accurate facts, you cite to news articles written for sensationalism. You inaccurately report about the note transactions with the Japanese companies and the so-called Ponzi scheme. You also inaccurately portray the nature of reason for the contempt proceedings. A witness came forward in 2012 who was a former officer inside the MCC in NY who has filed an affidavit in court that he was told to hold Armstrong until he broke or fessed up to the charges. Armstrong was placed in the hole for 8 days to break him physically, mentally and spiritually. That led to the so-called scripted plea, which he was required to read verbatim as written by the DOJ. The write up on the cache of hidden coins is another fabrication. What is written there do3es not accurately portray the real story. Read the original court documents, and not rely on more news paper reporting designed to sell papers. You were also not present in the court chambers as I was to hear what was actually told to the judge in Philadelphia. The federal district court judge was told that the receiver may have an interest in those coins, which appeared out of nowhere 3 years after they were allegedly found. So, any claim that we should stick to the original source is nonsense. If you wish to discuss this openly and honestly with me, I am happy to do so. ArmstrongLawyer (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please keep comments on the article to the article's talk page at Talk:Martin A. Armstrong Ratel (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for the knee-jerk revert: I hadn't realized how much you and others had discussed on the talk page of Zero Hedge. Will go through that discussion and just contribute there instead. Thanks for patience. -Darouet (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. == The.Barbaryan (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

George Pell

Thank you for the link to The Inside Story, and the article by Jeremy Gans – Pell in purgatory. I was not aware of The Inside Story or the article by Gans so I have read it with interest, several times.

You have written that “Pell was acquitted because of a technicality.” I have asked my computer to search Gans’ article for the words technicality, technical, technicalities etc but it found nothing. You have also written that “It’s still not an exoneration by any means” so I have searched for the words exoneration, exonerate etc. but without success. Paraphrasing can be a risky business when quoting others, especially on a controversial subject.

Misplaced Pages’s definition of original research is very broad. I accused you of writing about your original research. You defended yourself by citing the article by Jeremy Gans. I remain of the view that, while the Gans article is interesting and written by an expert, it doesn’t support some of the ideas you proposed on the Craig Kelly Talk page. I don't want to labour the point - I just point out that the best way to avoid accusations of original research is to cultivate a style of writing that sticks closely to authoritative sources and doesn't look to others like your own ideas. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 13:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, please stop this nonsense, and stop trying to irritate and point score with me. OR refers to inserting synthetized material into articles, not to making offhand comments on talk pages. To 'exonerate' is to 'declare innocent', which did not happen. He was declared "not guilty", a vastly different outcome, and the article I linked for you made that clear, although not so succinctly. The reason for the not guilty finding was definitely a technicality (that the jury had not given enough weight to the possibility that he was innocent). Now go away. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)