Brewcrewer! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I haven't been terribly active on Wikipedia in the past 6 months or so, but I'd certainly be willing to take a look at the article and see if there's any way I can help. Natalie (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. Don't move the page again unless you achieve consensus to do so. Right now, it's you against everyone, so the page should stay put. Mr. Darcy talk 03:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an administrator and have been here years longer than you, since
you seem to be too lazy to look this stuff up before running your mouth that seems to matter to you. Having seen countless revert wars before, I know full well that many editors choose to wait hours, sometimes days, before reverting again, whether to avoid WP:3RR or in the hope that their adversaries will give up. I suggest you follow your own advice about reading WP:DICK, watch how you speak to other editors, and learn about consensus before editing further. Mr. Darcy talk 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It says quite a bit that your first reaction is to rant and threaten rather than to acknowledge that you won't move the page against consensus. Reverting a revert of your page move without stopping to work to achieve consensus was, at best, poor judgment. Don't do it again. Mr. Darcy talk 02:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about giving up admin status, although the last proposal for a recall procedure failed a while ago. If you think I should be de-sysopped for warning you not to revert a page move for a third time, go for it. Back to the subject of your tone, calling another user an "idiot" [1] is unacceptable under any circumstances. Referring to another user "who does not know what he's doing" [2] is, at the least, uncivil. The fact that you're doing a lot of good work does not excuse speaking to other editors in this way. If what you're doing is right, then the rude commentary is unnecessary. Mr. Darcy talk 02:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asked, and answered. If you want to try for some sort of revenge by recalling me, go right ahead. I've already explained that I don't care about giving up the keys. Mr. Darcy talk 04:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually had no intention of bringing up the question of tone until you exploded on my talk page. You're going on and on about "insults," but the note at the top of this thread had no insults whatsoever - just a warning not to move the article again. If you didn't intend to move it again, just say so. I'm not sure if you're ultra-sensitive or just spoiling for a fight, but I'm struggling to understand how That's enough. Don't move the page again unless you achieve consensus to do so. Right now, it's you against everyone, so the page should stay put. is an insult. You called another user an "idiot." Now that is an insult. I was concerned about a page-move war, which is pointless and (as I understand it) puts a little extra tax on the servers, so I issued a soft warning (no threat of a block or any punitive action, since you're a productive editor with no history of blocks or warnings that I could find). A soft warning is not an insult and I doubt you'll find many users who'll see it as one.
- Again, if my fear was unwarranted, all you had to do was say something like, "Don't worry, we're working on building a consensus now," or a pointer to the discussion (which I did not see prior to posting here) and that would have been the end of it. Mr. Darcy talk 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually never warned you about 3RR. Ever. I merely brought it up as one of many reasons why I might get involved as a third party in an edit war. And users with lots of edits do get involved in edit wars. They might get a benefit of the doubt when it comes to a block, but again, I never, at any point, threatened you with a block or any other punitive action. I insisted that the page-move reversions stop. Turns out they already had, but I couldn't know that until you told me.
- By the way, as a peace offering, I've stricken the one thing I wrote above that was, indeed, obnoxious. Sorry about that. I still don't see what was insulting in the first post, though. Mr. Darcy talk 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's where we're just going to disagree. My suggestion, post hoc, is that after your move was reverted, you should have gone right to discussion, rather than re-reverting and then discussing. If your position was the right one, you should have the confidence that you'll achieve consensus for your move through the discussion. The revert of the revert was what caught my eye. And, for the second time, you keep bringing up the part where I warned you about 3RR, but that never happened.
- You're taking a simple warning as a personal affront, which I assume is what prompted the condescension you've poured on my talk page. Please accept that no warning is intended to be personal, and that includes the soft warning I gave you. Mr. Darcy talk 06:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be my guest. Will you agree to refrain from referring to other users as "idiots" or by similar pejoratives? Mr. Darcy talk 13:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the drunk, crazy, clueless idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, formerly known as digitalmischief. While I love Good Samaritans, and applaud Mr. Darcy for caring enough to protect my delicate honor (cough!cough!), I am actually quite able to respond to a few hard words on Wikipedia without assistance. In fact, brewcrewer and I played nice yesterday, and buried the hatchet. There was agreement, and positive thinking. I also wanted to call him Hancock, but I was able to restrain myself. So now, I think it's time for Mr. Darcy to realize that since I can stand up for myself, he can just focus his reasoning argument on the content of the article, which we were at some point actually talking about fixing. Thank you brewcrewer and thank you Mr. Darcy, both Gentlemen and Scholars. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The Sears case was based directly on the Constitution and not case law, interestingly. The ruling was that the states (and presumably also the federal government) could not pass laws interfering with the Constitutional blurb in Article One on patents, stating that Congress could grant exclusive rights to inventors for limited times ... and the flip side of that was, there would be no rights afterwards, or if there was no patent. I realized the DYK blurb didn't mention the case, I'll fix that now. Tempshill (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to propose some hooks of your own. I really couldn't think of anything but putting Phillies and football into the same sentence. I did think of a hooking involving how the Phillies who recently won the World Series used to own these Phillies, but didn't see it as intersenting. I did find a third article that could use a hook. --D.B.talk•contribs 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Thank you for your compliments concerning the article. As for your corrections, don't worry I don't have to revert them. Actually I have translated all that from Arabic to Enlgish, I ended up having a headache and didn't want to review the content much. Thank you for your contribution. --Zaher1988 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you:). Yeah I have noticed that, what do you suggest doing?? --Zaher1988 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you I will do so. I will remove the image, and reply to the the one who replied to reconsider that. -- Zaher1988 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? StarM 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, just find out that I lost a few million dollars. Haha. Nah, it's just what was cute and clever one day, is lame today. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I had a few million to lose ;) When I flew back from Cancun they asked at customs whether I had more than $10K, my answer was "I wish" :) StarM 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need money? Look for people with initialized names and get friendly with them. They'll be getting millions thrown their way any second now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Bury the hatchet?? I noticed you worked on the Video blogging article. There is a current dispute regarding a recent correction of the article timeline in which a new editor deleted the first recorded video blog and substituted The Journey by Adam Kontras. I'm not familiar enough with what sources would be considered acceptable here, but I am starting to smell a hoax. I would love some talking down. I have started a request for comment here: Video blogging. You can also track the AfD for Adam Kontras. Best stuff. --OliverTwisted 14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, sorry I couldn't reply earlier. Real life caught up with me. I don't even remember editing the article and video blogging surely isn't my expertise, but maybe I'll poke my head into the drama later. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just nominated John P. McCormick for deletion.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't originally planning on nominating, so if you can find a good DYK fact out of it be my guest! It still needs some editing work that I'll do in the morning. Joshdboz (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits are great, it needed a thorough editing. Joshdboz (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to thank you and Joshdboz for this article - I never considered writing one myself, partly because I didn't have all the documentation at hand to do a proper job of it, but also, sadly, it never crossed my mind! You've done a nice job of this. I'm Charlie Winters's daughter. If there's some way I can help, let me know. Corgi (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty amazing. To have a father who shaped world history, who helped form a country, and only God knows how many lives he saved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you were active in making the earlier edits to Nariman house. Anyway, someone has very kindly placed a picture of the building on WP just after the attacks: [3] Just thought you might want to know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting my know. It sure makes a difference in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments on the deletion pages for two detainees at GITMO. Check this out: [4]. Each civil habeus case has its own page, all substantially similar, all with the same formatics. I would suggest that each gets merged with their subjects, who also has his own page (in many cases failing notability), as do their lawyers (why they are notable, I have no idea).Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, this GITMO problem is an longstanding problem here at Wikipedia. It's basically two editors, User:Geo Swan and User:Sherurcij who if it were up to them, would write a separate article on each bathroom on GITMO. They're very anti-GITMO and I guess they feel they will somehow further their cause by writing articles on anything related to GITMO. I've fought some pitched battles at afd's, some successful and some not. But that is the life here at WP, you gotta deal with all kinds of people. We just have to convince the majority that their whole scheme is silly and POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added Inline Citation to the article. If you have time, take a look at it. Thank you! --Fipplet (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now, assuming that it's a WP:RS. Please note the cite addition at the DYK suggestion page. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given an alternative DYK hook for this article. Perhaps you'd like to comment on it. Mgm|(talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on your support? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to tell whether the preemption in Justice Black's opinion was based on statute or Constitution. The language of the opinion permits the reader to draw either inference. The ambiguity was intentional, as sometimes occurs in Supreme Court opinions when maintaining consensus may be an issue.
I cannot give you a citation for this, but I was there at the relevant time and my statement is based on undocumented oral history. You might want to look also at Bonito Boats which travels similar ground.
----PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Cirt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar. I try to come up with good ideas when I can; happens only rarely, though. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note new evidence provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your question, I'm not sure why you are confused. If you read the many different articles cited, you will see that there are conflicting reports. Some say he was warned, some say his family was warned, some go further and suggest that not only was he was warned, but that he deliberately chose to ignore the warnings. Some suggest that he knew the risks posed to Hamas leaders in general and chose not to hide. Some say that there is no confirmation that he or his family were warned directly. All of this is in the refs cited. When there are mutliple conflicting reports about what happened, we should list them all and attribute them to the sources, so that the reader can decide for themselves what happened. When you delete the distinctions between the reports, you impose one POV on the article. So please stop doing that and let's try to work together to represent all the different reports on the subject as best we can. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are mistaken regarding the uniaminity of opinion in the RS's. Further, per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, when there is more than one POV on an issue, we should represent them all and attribute them to their speakers. It may seem awkward presently, but that is only because this is breaking news and as developments continue, the information will become less contradictory (at least one hopes) with time. This discussion should continue however, at the talk page. We can go through the refs cited one by one and determine exactly how to represent the different accounts. Tiamuttalk 15:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I think this is better discussed at the talk page for the article. Right now, I am going through the refs cited one by one. Note that the Jerusalem Post cite listed in footnote #2 says nothing about any warnings at all, so that's one down. As I go through them, I will add the exact quotes about the subject in footnotes so that the reader can review the information for themselves. There is definitely much more contradiction in the reports than you seem to think. I urge you to read the articles yourself. Tiamuttalk 15:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. Please check out my discussion page regarding to your question on Nizar Rayyan. --Kaaveh (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to touch bases on the GC article. It has to be the most frustrating article ever. I wanted to thank you for your hard work on it and let you know that there is at least one person out there who appreciates it, lol. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. The reason I've been putting in surname templates is that the surname/hndis templates also identify the page as disambiguation - that is, the page ends up with the hidden "All disambiguation pages" category. I've written some orphan-identifying scripts, which excludes disambig pages, but some of these surname pages were showing up in my orphan lists. So I made of list of surname pages, and have been looking at each one, and if one has very little text but does have a list of names, I put the surname or hndis template on it. I could also accomplish my goal with the generic disambig template. Would that work better? --JaGatalk 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surname pages are quasi-dab pages. Although they walk, talk, and quack like dab pages, they aren't real dab pages. All the entries are different terms; they only share a last name. Thus, adding {{dab}} to surname pages would run into a lot of protests. It you would like to add the surname templates to the articles, it's fine, but please add them as {{surname|nocat}} when the page is already categorized. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even a page like Furtado? That looks very DAB to me - sharing a common name is what DABs are all about, and the article has next to no content besides the list of names. --JaGatalk 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a little looking on the Anthroponymy project and saw you're right - probably articles with no content besides the list should be a DAB page instead of a surname page, but they're labeled as such, and I'm not going to bother changing them. --JaGatalk 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I was wondering if you ever found an answer to your question here? I'm having the same problem, and have all kinds of monobook foo and enabling/distabling Twinkle in gadgets, but can't find an answer of how to prevent things from getting on my watchlist. Thanks so much. FlyingToaster 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
- Nah, I just tediously unwatch them. Sorry :-( --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like, you can direct NPOV concerns about the lead of 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#NPOV.VR talk 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus for it's non-inclusion. If anything to the contrary. Therefore, I don't have to go there to argue for it's inclusion. You have to go there and argue for the removal of something that is sourced and important and corrects a blatant WP:POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm already there. Would you care to join me? (There you will see that I'm not trying to "remove" anything).VR talk 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unfair to revert and then initiate a discussion, as if I have to argue to change the status quo. The addition of the entire basis of the conflict, which is clearly supported by reliable sources, is something that is most integral to a lede. Please revert and then argue for it's removal. I'll be glad to entertain your arguments for it's removal. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not removed it, rather I moved it down to the second paragraph where both Israel's and Hamas' reasons are being discussed. The first paragraph is for basic info like time, location, parties etc. Do you think the coverage of Israel's reasons in the second paragraph is unfair?VR talk 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph, the background, is also a POV violation. The paragraph decides to go back in time until the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, giving the impression that everything started from the blockade. How about going back a little further and explain why Israel decided to create the blockade?
- In any case, the background and how far back to go within the background is another POV problem that has to be taken up when the first POV problem is resolved. The first POV problem is the fact that the precipitating action is missing from the opening of the lede. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The widespread sources quote blockade of Gaza, and rocket fire of Hamas as the two reasons. We can keep going further back, however, after December 19, these were the two reasons mentioned.
- The opening of the lead is there to give basic information and not start blaming. Please note that the first paragraph doesn't blame Israel for the blockade either.VR talk 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I removed the mention of Israeli airstrikes from the first paragraph.[5] I thought that was fair.VR talk 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However, the second paragraph needs work. It's incorrect to say that the rockets were in response to the blockade when the rockets were being fired long before the blockade took place in June of 2007. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't say that was the case. It says Hamas says that. Do you beg to differ?VR talk 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since the truce ended (but before 27) Hamas fired rockets into Israel, and Israel killed several Palestinians.VR talk 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally: 2001=bad idea. So many encounters have happened between Hamas and Israel, we couldn't possibly cover them in the lead while keeping it brief. Let's just give background info in the lead, not the history of Israeli-Hamas conflict.VR talk 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas might say that they will stop if Israel lifts the blockade, but they don't claim that the only reason for the rockets is the blockade? How can they?
- The Hamas-Israel conflict is far greater and complex then the rockets fired from Gaza. In any case, just saying that the issue arose after the truce ended is misleading. Readers will think that the rockets from Hamas started only then, while that's not the case. Besides for being misleading, it's just poorly written. We can't tell a reader that there was a truce without telling the reader what the truce was all about.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC
- Hamas blamed Israel, whether rightly or wrongly, for not respecting the truce condition of not blockading (whether this was a condition can also be debated, but that's not the point).
- Ofcourse violence didn't start then, because we have linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the lead as well. Certainly, I don't think we can cover the entire history of Hamas-Israel violence in the lead.
- We should definitely tell the reader what the truce was about - in the background section.VR talk 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't tell readers that there was a truce for something but not tell them what the truce was for until sections later. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "cross border fighting" part is just wrong. There was no cross border fighting going on in between the end of the truce and the beginning of the Israeli airstrikes. Only Hamas was doing the fighting, by firing rockets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas was indeed doing the fighting, but Israel also made airstrikes, and there was clash between Hamas militants and Israeli soldiers.[6]VR talk 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your version says that there was cross border fighting prior to the 27th. However, there were over a hundred rockets fired from Hamas and one shooting from the Israeli side. I wouldn't describe that as "cross border fighting". Indeed, nor do reliable sources describe that time frame in that fashion. See also WP:SYNTH. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag is self-explanatory. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wide ranging consensus conversation around the lede. Feel free to express your views there and perhaps your convince other. In the meantime, I am reverting your non-discussed edits to the rough consensus version, as modified. If you do not attempt to establish consensus by productive dialog, as many editors are trying to do, you will be reverted. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede at that talk page doesn't resemble the current lede. In addition, the fact that it's "wide-ranging" is exactly the problem. It's basically a hodge-podge of different issues in which no three editors are discussing the same thing. Although I might admire your intentions to pigeon-hole editors to certain talk pages before making certain edits, you can't revert other editors on this basis. You must provide a substantive reason for reverting another editor. Another thing: I might be more willing to go along with this "lede talk page" scheme if you'd be consistent with your reverts of of lede edits. Apparently, you are only reverting the edits which you don't agree with. Btw, when you respond (if you do) please don't end your message to me with "thanks". It makes me very nervous. What are you thanking me for? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done a through study of my lede edits? Almost all of them have been grammar rewrites or rephrasing to eliminate redundancies (at one point "december" and "israeli" appeared 3 times in two sentences!). And I haven't reverted anything except blatant vandalism or pov pushing. In fact, I have added things, and as it stands, now, was 75% written by me and 25% sourced by me, including the bits you have obviously like as you haven't reverted ([[WP:BEANS|not that I want to give you any ideas). I am sorry, but you must have confused me with someone else... That said, I think it would be more constructive if you choose to debate, as you would learn, for example, that the version at the begining is outdated, because it has been superseded by discussion and editing. Had you read the debate you would have realized this. Of course, do as you feel, but what does that say about your respect for your fellow editors? No thanks, as per request, althought I am curious, why does it make you nervous? It is the first time I have heard that one... --Cerejota (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...if you feel I have done 3RR. I haven't. Adding material is not a reversion, fixing grammar is not RR, doing non-controversial edits and reverts is not 3RR. Sorry, but you are wrong, and you know it. Check the diffs. And please be useful instead of disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|