User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2008/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Orthodox

Absolutely not. Membership in a synagogue does not imply observance at all. Does he keep Shabbos, does he keep Kosher, does he keep Taharas Hamishpacha? It's pretty clear that he does not, and that he is more likely Reform. -- Avi (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He sends his kids to a reform school, which is unheard of in Orthodox circles, I am certain we can find cases of his being mechallel shabbos and eating tarfus (the steak knife incident comes to mind). While shul membership may be transparent, it is just NOT an indicator. I know plenty of non-Orthodox Jews who have memberships in Orthodox shuls. It is just not a proper indicator. For example, I'm not suggesting we use an even more transparent indicator, does he wear a yarmulke and tzitzis in public, because that too is not a valid indicator. I know frum people who have a heter not to wear a head covering. Brewer, we have to use something that is CORRECT, not merely something that is INCORRRECT but convenient. -- Avi (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, he sends his kids to a Conservative school, which is not allowed in Orhodox circles (see the same reference. It is the same school he attended as a child, and nowhere does it say that he has become a Baal Teshuva and taken on Orthodox strictures. If anything, that reference is proof of his identifying with Conservative Judaism, and I will add him to that category. -- Avi (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a "Conservative Jews" category, I wonder why Orthodox Jewry is singled out? -- Avi (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Newest" source says that he sends his children to the same Conservative day school that he attended. I think that is sufficient to demonstrate that he is Conservative and certainly not Orthodox. -- Avi (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the school one sends one's children too is much more indicative and much less problematic than using a complete non-indicator such as temple or synagogue membership.

-- Avi (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But that exactly is the problem - you think so. I surely agree that your stance is reasonable and might even agree with you. However, at the same time, you must agree that another's idea of Orthodox Judaism could reasonably place a greater emphasis on the parent's synagogue than kids elementary school. emanuel's situation resolved itself but our point of contention can rear its head in plenty of situations where there might not be an easy way out. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article!

Heads up: your article on Nariman House is wonderful. I was doing DYK verification and read it -- you did a fantastic job! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. However, it is User:Epson291 that really deserves the credit. I just got in his/her way :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then you may want to update the DYK nomination to include Epson291 -- as it stands, you are the one getting the sole credit for the article. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured that the person giving out the DYK's will take notice and if they don't I can always copy and paste my DYK on his talk page. That won't work? I just didn't see a precedent of adding the main writers to the DYK nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the folks who give out the DYKs usually just read the nominations and give the honours to the name(s) on the nominations. You can copy and paste, if you want -- your call. Nonetheless, it is a very impressive article and I will glad to see it on the Main Page. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 Mumbai attacks

Agree with you 100%. I have been part of very contentious debates, arbcoms etc, throughout the years but even with strong disagreements most people had pretty valid things to say. This is almost troll-like, except, the people are obviously not trolls... This survey has baffled me, I honestly thought it was going to snowball! (so much for *my* crystal balls, he-he)

I think the proposal to move forward later is good, and in fact the better arguments for keeping the name were those in that vibe. What's a month? ;) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My garbled 'accusations of incivility are not civil' nonsense

I agree that this line is obviously complete nonsense and did not come out at all how it was meant and i apologize for any offence caused by it. The comment was not intended to condemn you or your behaviour in any way. What i was trying to point out was that 'vandalism' is assuming a deliberate attempt to disrupt wikipedia, try not to use the term unless the editor is very obviously deliberately attempting to disrupt, especially if you are involved in a dispute, as some editors may consider it a personal attack. --neon white talk 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Shooting victims

I don't get it. Is this one supposed to encompass all individuals who were shot regardless of whether they survived or not? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"victim" has nothing to do with death. I think there already is a cat for dead people - Category:Deaths by firearm

And there's one for survivors - Category:Shooting survivors. So what's the victims cat for? Both? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like there's some redundant cats here. Do you think we should take this to WP:CFD? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess. Can I leave it in your hands? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Famous last words........:-) I'll see what I can do. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was about to place the delete tag on the article when I realized that I think i get it. Shooting victims is the parent cat for Category:Shooting survivors and Category:Deaths by firearm. Technically, the parent cat should be empty except for the two subcats because anybody that was shot fits into any of the two subcats. Its like Category:People from New York which technically should be empty because of the Category:People by county in New York subcat. Agree? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that we're supposed to empty it out? If that's the case, a bot request should be made. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't ask a bot to do it because each article has to be checked to see if it belongs in Category:Shooting survivors or Category:Deaths by firearm. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two anyway? They're virtually the same thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference. Whether they survived or not. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the point of Category:Shooting victims? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a "parent" cat for the two subcats. This scheme is prevalent. I asked another editor who is very involved with categories and this was his response. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Guess our job is to "clean it out"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess. I started :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in no rush to do it now. Might get to it eventually. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no... it must be Groundhog Day!

Hey, Brewcrewer -- I saw your query at Good Ol'factory's talk page, and I just had to follow up to see what was going on. Imagine my stunned amazement when I saw your conversation with Sesshomaru. It was all I could do not to break out in peals of hysterical laughter... the kind you might hear in a loony bin! LOL

Just read the following conversation I had with Sesshomaru back in February, and you'll understand. From my talk page:

== Shooting victims ==

Your rewording looks confusing, a bit. Does it imply that individuals that are killed would be included (eg, Lee Harvey Oswald, and a number of murdered activists)? Please respond below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, Category:Shooting_victims is NOT "Category:Shooting survivors" -- the point being that all victims of shootings are encompassed, regardless of whether they survived being shot. Those who did not survive are termed "fatalities", and belong in the subcategory, Category:Deaths by firearm. If you feel that the wording needs to be slightly tweaked to convey that information more clearly you're free to do so, as long as you retain the fundamental meaning I've just explained. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I combined the descriptions. Think it could be better? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you so insist, I'll do a {{cfr}} to Category:Shooting suvivors because I don't see the point to this summary. Any individuals who were killed by firearm should be categorized in Category:Deaths by firearm. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet (and much simpler), why don't you just go ahead and create Category:Shooting survivors as a second sub-cat of Category:Shooting victims? Then all of the articles currently listed in Category:Shooting victims can be moved to the appropriate sub-cat (with all but a very few presumably going to Category:Shooting survivors). That way everything will be crystal clear: they're all victims, some survived being shot, and some didn't. Cgingold (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost. Thought we were considering a rename, albeit, I don't see the purpose of creating another category if this one can be used (it's probably just the description that needs work). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Chose WP:CFDS as a better selection. I've done the request, now we wait. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Neither of the items you posted qualify under the criteria for Speedy Renaming. You'll need to take them to regular CFD. Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid of this. Would you happen to be busy ATM? I ask because I'll set up one while you do the other. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I am indeed quite busy -- I don't even have enough time for my own Wiki stuff, let alone someone else's. But the instructions are all right there on the page. Cgingold (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent] Okay, I'm going to give this one more try. You can save yourself (and everyone else) the bother of taking this to CFD if you will simply follow the plan I outlined above. Since you're having a problem understanding my explanation, please take a look at the analagous category, Category:Stabbing victims, and you will see that it is already set up exactly as I suggested for this category, with two analagous sub-cats. All you have to do is create Category:Shooting survivors, and then move the articles from Category:Shooting_victims to the correct sub-cats. If this still isn't clear, I'm afraid I've run out of ways to get this across. Good luck. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the CFD discussion which Sesshomaru & I both took part in. It sure seemed like he understood things at that point...

Okay, then! I guess I'll see you in another 9 months to straighten this out all over again... :) Cgingold (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nariman House

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nariman House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the egalitarian website thing, See -->. -- Y not? 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for MV Biscaglia

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MV Biscaglia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Rivka Holtzberg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rivka Holtzberg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rivka Holtzberg seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rivka Holtzberg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel Rackman

Thanks for the touchup work. I'm happy with the article, but this one article has spawned several others that I was shocked did not already exist. Your efforts to review and clean up the article are appreciated, as always. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. A compliment from a great Wikipedian like yourself means a heckuva lot to me. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

You're quite right, I just followed the tag without checking. I would have deleted it it anyway - no sources, pretty spammy (As a very accomplished guitarist) - and I note that it was first deleted as a copyright violation. I should have posted a correct reason though, sorry, jimfbleak (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the creation protection, since the guy appears to be notable, and a proper article could be written jimfbleak (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your posted comments have been logged

It is completely inappropriate to refer to editors on Wikipedia in personally disparaging terms. I have logged each of your personal comments, and forwarded them to an admin. You may wield your power as you see fit, but you may not disparage other editors on public, posted talk pages. I am not drunk, crazy, nor "doesn't know what he's doing". I'm sure the admin who deleted the Aaron Wolfson article doesn't appreciate being called careless.... and maybe next time, instead of ordering people to do your bidding, you might try just asking. I use "test page" tagging, to avoid accusing people of vandalism or malfeasance to avoid harsh feelings. You might experiment with that. --digitalmischief (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. You can't use the "test page" tag if it does not apply. If it's not vandalism and there is not other speedy criteria DON'T TAG IT. Please abide by WP:CSD. If you don't like the CSD rules maybe you should think about "contributing" somewhere else on this project. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply re: Sean Bell/subway scandal

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)

Sears

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)

J. J. Putz

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Phillies

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)

RE:Lebanese Commando Regiment

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)

Thank you:). Yeah I have noticed that, what do you suggest doing?? --Zaher1988 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Bad day?

? StarM 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated John P. McCormick for deletion.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for NYPD subway sodomy incident

On 19 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NYPD subway sodomy incident, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Need Your Expertise

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. --Oliver Twisted 14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Winters

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)

The edits are great, it needed a thorough editing. Joshdboz (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nariman house

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)

Thanks for letting my know. It sure makes a difference in the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Detainee Coatrack articles

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)

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. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Muallaq Mosque

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)

Looks good now, assuming that it's a WP:RS. Please note the cite addition at the DYK suggestion page. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re'im

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)

Suntag's RfA

Could you please elaborate on your support? Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More on Sears v. Stiffel

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).

DYK for Charles Winters

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Winters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)