User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Poland Uprising (1848)

Please note new evidence provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nizar Rayan

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)

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)
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)
Hi there. Please check out my discussion page regarding to your question on Nizar Rayyan. --Kaaveh (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict

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)

Twinkle woes

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)

Nah, I just tediously unwatch them. Sorry :-( --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Raise it with 3RR noticeboard...

...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)

I'm sorry, I should have been more careful. I looked into your edits and realized that I was wrong. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I accept the apology... is this the reason you reverted in my talk? If so, I will revert it myself again. No need to have this out in the open. Thank you for apologizing. We all should do it more, and I know how hard it is to do. ;) --Cerejota (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed it ;)--Cerejota (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Surname template

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)

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)
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)
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)
If I may interject, I do not believe that pages like Furtado are dab pages. (That is why, by the by, I reverted JaGa's edit to Walker (surname).) An example of a hndis page is James Walker, where the people share more than just one name. Sharing just a given name or just a surname does not a dab page make, although the format can look very similar. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm no longer that involved in surname pages so I'd rather not get too involved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • BTW, I removed the mention of Israeli airstrikes from the first paragraph.[1] I thought that was fair.VR talk 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you provide me with one link where Hamas states that its only reason for starting to shoot rockets after the truce ended was the blockade. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hamas was indeed doing the fighting, but Israel also made airstrikes, and there was clash between Hamas militants and Israeli soldiers.[2]VR talk 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Actually, my edits are entirely within the bounds of wiki policy. The words "corss-border fighting" was straight out of a reliable source: Reuters.VR talk 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The tag is self-explanatory. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your lede edit at the Gaza conflcit article

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)

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)
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 (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)
Look, the second paragraph is horribly written and very misleading. I've explained why in the above thread. The "thanks" makes me nervous because it doesn't make sense. Why should your be thanking me? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am thanking you for reading me! for taking the time... I think I did some changes that should address the matter. I hear your point and even sympathize with it, but I think the lede should be a summary, not a long explanation. In the first line there is a link to the main conflict page, the background section is precisely for this. For reasons of length I have opposed talking int he lede about background, but there seems to be a growing consensus around some mention. Right now I am doing a sourcing and wiki link fix, and the lede is becomign more stable... I hope we can move beyond it soon.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not for adding to the lede. My version for the second paragraph, the "background paragraph", is not longer then the current version. The current version is badly written and misleading. The paragraph starts off with a "truce" which we know nothing about and just begs a whole bunch of questions which are not answered until a later section. What truce? Why truce? When truce? Truce over what? But that in of itself would not bother me if not for the fact that it's misleading and grossly in favor of the Palestinian POV. The paragraph implies that the rockets only began after the truce ended. That's not true. They were firing rockets since 2001 and Israel had plans of initiating this action long before the truce ended (all sourced, of course). In addition, unlike the paragraph's implications, there was nothing called "cross-border fighting" after the truce ended and before Dec 27 airstrikes began. Hamas fired over a 100 rockets within that span while Israel shot once at Hamas members Israel claims was about to fire a rocket. No reliable source refers to these intermittent days as "cross-border fighting". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, check the changes and the invisible comment I put in, and give me input (I think wording is ok tho on the part on "cross-border figthing", while Hamas did fire a bunch of rockets, it didn't kill anyone, while the israeli action did, so lets say one Hamas member dead + 100 inefective rockets = crossborder fighting... why? because we should use an encyclopedic voice. The details are either on the background or in other articles) I am all for balance!--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Question begging problems are not resolved with hidden comments. They're called "hidden comments" for a reason, because readers don't see them. I don't agree with you in regard to the "cross-border fighting" term. This is a general problem with people's way of approaching this conflict. People think everything should be even. 100 infective rockets = one dead Hamas member. It just doesn't work like that. If one side is shooting over a 100 rockets and one side kills one of the "launchers", they are not "fighting". Besides, no reliable source refers to this "cross-border fighting", so we can't, per WP:SYNTH make it up. But the most important problem has yet to begin being resolved. The whole paragraph is misleading. It makes it seem like the rockets only began after the truce ended and it's just plain false. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph clearly says "Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities." It is unambigously saying that the rationale for the attacks is the "increased rocket fire". Please, take a step back and re-read: this has not been a one-side conversation, and great care has been taken to address both sides. I do understand your concerns, and they are legitimate, but I feel, unless you explain to me otherwise, that they are currently addressed in the way they should be addressed by the lede.--Cerejota (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it isn't WP:SYNTH: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. The sources (taken as a whole: remember the lede is a summary of the article, so what is sourced in the article verifies the lede) unequivocally said that there was "cross-border fighting" before Operation Cast Lead but after the end of the ceasefire. For example, Tipping Point - After years of rocket attacks, Israel finally says, ‘Enough!’ - The Baltimore Jewish Times, a respected regional newspaper of immaculate Zionist credentials says: "Dec. 19, 2008 — Attempts to renew the ceasefire fail. A surge of cross-border fighting begins." This is a direct quote. I am sorry, but unless you do not consider the Baltimore Jewish Times a reliable source - which I would vigorously argue against, I think you are mistaken in your view of this being WP:SYNTH.--Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong and irrelevant. See my response at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#POV problems with the second paragraph. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was offensive

Hi Brewcrewer. Just wanted to say I'm sorry if you were offended in our latest discussion. That's the price we pay for editing such nerve-touching pages anyway :). Have fun. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I get yelled at worse in real life :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nizar Rayan

Updated DYK query On January 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nizar Rayan, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How Do You Edit?

Greetings Brewcrewer, and thank you for starting my talk page.

I joined Wikipedia in 2006, and created Michael Johnathon by reading online help, and simply entering the codes.

I have been fixing typos for past three years, but want to write something more complicated now — using an easier, graphical editor.

I enabled Edit Toolbar tonight, and also tried wikiEd — what do you use?

Thanks, Mitch3000 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mitch. When I notice a "redlinked editor" making a good edit, I almost always add the welcome template to their article, hoping to encourage them to continue editing. But rarely do any of them continue editing and it's even more rare to get a response. So it's pretty cool to get a response from you. As for editing tools, I'm not that advanced with all the "shtick". I use the edit toolbar and Twinkle, but I only got them after at-least 15k edits. I also made my first edit long after you did (sometime in august of 07), so we're on extremely different trajectories. I don't really stick to one issue; I kinda wonder here and there. As of now, I'm working at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The article is really slanted as an anti-Israeli POV. I don't know if the subject interests you, but I would not recommend it. It's not for newbies or the faint-hearted. It's full of unfriendly editors only interested in advancing their agenda. I would recommend something more lighter like something sports-related. Ultimately, I think you should just edit in area which you like and are familiar with. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roof knocking

I have nominated Roof knocking, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roof knocking. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks, Brewcrewer, for the DYK nom, if belated. Good work on expanding it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed - lets move on

I am disappointed at your recent attitude. You know that there is nothing against policy in including "Gaza massacre" (its sourced, presented neutrally etc - it is POV, but so is "Operation Cast Lead" which it balances to eliminate bias), you know the article is about the events that started with Operation Cast Lead (regardless of title). You know there is not a snowball chance in hell you can get this article to eliminate prominent mention of the Palestinian perspective no matter how hard you protest and edit war/edit ninja (if by neutrality you mean that only the Israeli perspective should be allowed, or the Palestinian perspective as presented by the Israeli perspective, then perhaps). There is no need to get pointy, and doing this is just not what Wikipedia is about. I ask you, I beg you, to stop. There are actual examples of non-neutrality and bias in the article. The lede isn't it: lets move on. --Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"You're disappointed at [my] recent attitude"? Being condescending and accusing me of being pointy because I disagree with your POV is not exactly the most WP:CIVIL way of interacting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You just proved my point. :(--Cerejota (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't come to my talk page to complain or attack me. If you would like to discuss something substantive, by my guest. If not, please, I'm trying to build a neutral encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see this:[3]. I am sure you are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia, and so I am, but we do this by building consensus: just because people do not share your views on neutrality, does that make them the personification of evil - it just makes them people who disagree with you. And I am sorry you misunderstand my concerns as attacks they certainly aren't from my view, and certainly not my intention.--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially if it involves on allegation of being uncivil and especially if it lacks any basis. Nobody has received more abuse at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict then I. I've been called a "dummy" and I've been told my arguments are "bullshit". Yet, I still stand here with my head high having not resorted to any name calling or argument rephrasing. This makes your "personification of evil" point most perplexing. But please, I'm not interested in drama. No attacks and no half-baked apologies. Let's just stick to content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I have seen abuse or POV pushing even from people that have agreed with me on a given discussion, I have raised it, but I disagree you have been in particularly a target, people simply disagree with you. If you are offended by a given user for calling you a "dummy", you should go to WP:DRAMA instead of threatening ArbCom: it just is not a good way of handling it. However, do you feel - other than the unfortunate mis-communication here - that *I* have been uncivil? And my apology is not half-backed, it is sincere, I am sorry it didn't come across as such. I do not want drama either, that is why I approach you directly. --Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting going to Arbcom because of the insults hurled at my direction. I'm suggesting going to arbcom because a consensus cannot be reached. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't rule on content, only on behavior, that is why I assumed you referred to the behavior. Ask them, they will tell you. And consensus has been reached, just not the one you agree with. Of course, Consensus can change. --Cerejota (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong on both accounts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
On the count of consensus, I will let the article itself speak: there are no 3RR violations yet the content is relatively stable, which is the definition of consensus. However, consensus being an ambiguous concept, I could live with being wrong.
On ArbCom, you are absolutely wrong:
I hope this clears up your confusion, although I will leave the door open for you to present me with evidence (or even an argument) that I am misreading ArbCom.--Cerejota (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Knuckleball pitchers

Hi Brewcrewer,

I found Category:Knuckleball pitchers and I think I might nominate it for deletion. Can you explain how it is useful to sort pitchers by their most prominent pitch? Would you approve of a Category:Fastball pitchers or Category:Curveball pitchers?--TM 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike fastball pitchers and curveball pitchers, knuckleball pitchers are a rarity. Thus, the cat is somewhat defining. But if you feel strongly about it you can take it to cfd. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I would support keep, not only is your argument compelling, but the category is pretty well used.--Cerejota (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

tags

Please assume good faith. See the talk page. There is a natural delay between placing the tags and writing the talk page thread. You should be more patient before launching accusations that border on the personal. This is not the first time we have been through this, and I feel I have done the best I can to deal with your attitude issues: we can both disagree and treat each other with trust and in a productive fashion. It is really bothersome to have to deal with repeated messages that launch accusations without any basis. --Cerejota (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As an example, see the apology you gave to me for the 3RR and the one for wikistalking from Tundra. You see what I mean? Its not positive bro, we can disagree, even strongly, but there is no need to do this.--Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On using "wrong"

Could you please, in the interest of civility, instead of saying "wrong" and not explain anything, always follow it with an explanation as to why it is wrong? I have seen you do this many times, and done it to me (even when I am patently factually right), and quite frankly it feels very unproductive: we are not here to emit shallow opinions and vote, we are here to discuss, and if your only response is "wrong" there is nothing to discuss: this is uncivil, as it closes the door for dialogue. Not everyone is as tolerant as I am, and understandably so.--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

roof knocking

Removed tag by accident, havinf server problems this day. Sorry.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I understand.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew for "roof knocking"

Hi, I think the hebrew for "roof knocking" is l'defawq al h'gag. I don't know how accurate it is, as my hebrew is very basic. Also, I do not know if that phrase itself(as I have written it in hebrew) is notable. I am sure that "roof knocking" is notable, but not necessarily my attempted translation. However, it might be a starting point to go off of. Hopefully, we can get someone who is a better hebrew speaker to help out.

Nice to meet you!WacoJacko (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. Thanks for your help with the article and dealing with the tag spamming. I don't know about the Hebrew translation. But what's important, is that since in recent times this type of military tactic has been undertaken by the IDF, the tactic is more notable in Israel then in other countries. Therefore there probably are more hebrew language news sources that discuss this tactic. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Civlity

I disagree I am being uncivil. However, I do ask you to back off and only post in my talk page over content, on when you are personally offended by me (for which I will always apologize, as it is not my intention to be offensive or engage in way otherwise related to editing). If you feel my behavior is in anyway unproductive, and needs addressing by the community, we have a dispute resolution process: feel free to use it, as we all have in the past. Again I ask you, as I have many times before, to not confuse strong disagreement with personal animosity. Thank you. --Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please apologize for ignoring this request. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Cerejota_and_Brewcrewer

I want to establish a dialogue, and this is definitely helped by getting a fresh set of eyes here.--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How is requesting mediation disruptive?--Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Great job. You baited me into a response - I'm looking your contrib history since 2005 and it's pretty amazing. Your entire Wikipedia existence is drama, drama, and more drama. You either create drama with your uncivil comments or just join drama scenes in which you were not involved. Roof knocking is a microcosm of your entire WP existence. You have been heavily involved but have not contributed to the article in any meaningful way. You started a baseless afd (coincidentally the first afd you initiated in a few months and right after you berated my on my talk page for disagreeing with you) and tagged the articles with totally irrelevant tags. You stubbornly argue for the relevance of the tags in the face of an obvious consensus that they are nonsense. The only thing you added to the article is one OR statement.
I'm not interested in any of your predictable WP:AGF and WP:CHILL responses. This is just a replay of the same issues you have went through with other editors countless of times.
I'm sorry, but I just don't have any confidence in any sort of resolution of this problem. Hopefully, you'll just move on and bother another editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I do disagree on your opinion of my experience in Wikipedia since I joined with an account, but it shows why mediation might be useful. However, I must correct factually incorrect information, the latest article I submitted to AfD was a week before the AfD on Roof knocking - [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anjana_chaudhari]. I cannot change your opinion of me, but I will correct factually incorrect information. --Cerejota (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking

Well, it looks like things worked out with the AFD on roof knocking! WacoJacko (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks a lot for your support!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

No need to apologize, but thanks anyway. It happens on articles like that. --Tocino 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your kind welcome

Hi brewcrewer,

Thank you for your welcome message which though I'm sure was written with the best intentions is moderately patronising. After all, I did sign my comment, it's not the first wikipedia article I've ever edited, and as I'm sure you would agree it's not up to anybody to bestow on people editing permission of articles without logging in! 93.97.36.253 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the patronizing tone. You should know that I did not actually write the welcome. It's just a template that I copy and pasted to your talkpage. There's a whole bunch of these templates at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chesley Sullenberger

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chesley Sullenberger, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Adequately covered in the article about his successful ditching of an airliner.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edison (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ITN awards

Thanks for leaving the note. It appears I forgot to do that. Usually, I look through the history and see which editors add the most content to the article. Thanks for reminding me...I'll go do that now. SpencerT♦C 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current events globe On 16 January, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article US Airways Flight 1549, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--SpencerT♦C 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sometimes somebody makes 20 edits to an ITN article (but are minor) and someone makes a 1-edit huge expansion that I miss. Also, I'm one of the few admins that gives them out (but I cover for the ones that don't), but I think it's just a nice way to encourage ITN participation. SpencerT♦C 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe so. You may want to use the image File:Nuvola apps knewsticker.png with it. SpencerT♦C 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Or File:Gnome globe current event.svg. SpencerT♦C 03:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Child Museum of Cairo

Expanded. Dun't anybody know better than to doubt baldy? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell hath no fury compared to a Baldy-created article taken to an afd :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Heheh! Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Thanks for taking this on. I've made the change to the page -- Samir 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Birds

Sauteed bird in the evening smells even better than Smelly Sox. StarM 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Willis McGahee microwaved children? source.

I just thought i would let you know since you seemed to have made some changes on that page. the last section says

"In January 2006, McGahee drew controversy when a woman claimed that he had microwaved her children. He has been faced with two other similar lawsuits over a three year span.[9] Genetic testing proved that McGahee was the father of both children.[9]"

I think thats probably vandalism, i couldnt find anything on the internet about microwaving children. I didnt want to change anything because i didnt know for sure.

thanks Brendan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.40.155 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It was vandalism and I removed it. In the future, if you see anything that might be vandalism and is unsourced (especially it it's about a living person) please don't hesitate, be WP:BOLD and remove it. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell Juhfiyeh

Thanks for correcting my tagging mistake on Tell Juhfiyeh. I'm pretty sure I meant to put up a "expand" tag, but put up the alternative name for "cleanup" ("improve") instead. Either a typo, or a brainfart, but either way thanks for catching it! Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not so sure about the {{expand}} tag either. It's kinda redundant to the "stub." But I guess it doesn't really matter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support on the noticeboard and on Cyde's talk page. It is much appreciated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

Re [4]: Please see the explanation I provided here for why the title should, according to the MoS, not be in boldface. It's understandable that some assume every article title must be repeated in boldface in the article lead, but it's really hypercorrection. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd reconsider and return it to the MoS-compatible version. 78.34.134.183 (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just a drive-by edit. I don't care either way. You can revert if you wish. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, the article has been protected in the meantime (and rightly so), so I can't edit it anymore. 78.34.134.183 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Done.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! (let's see how long it lasts :D ) 78.34.134.183 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Girls eh?

You missed my 2008 Olympic welcome home parade set. In my archives, 97-99 I think? There used to be a race for women IIRC but they got rid of it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

... which is a darn shame! Giggy (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but just doesn't do it for me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. But on the other hand, File:TDUblonde1.jpg - No - - No - File:TDUblonde3.jpg - No

Ah ha! This one This one almost does do it for me. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Added one per request....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

TDU

For your amusement? (I hope.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Good one. My talkpage is officially out of control.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Regarding: this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I voted 1 more because I was in the mood of being contrarian. 2 is probably a better idea.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed

I have noticed that when you search the name David Wright, you go to a list of different David Wrights. I don't really think this is good because David Wright(baseball) is probobly to best known David Wright. I don't know how to fix this, could you either tell me or do it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that although the baseball player is the best known to you and I, somebody in say South Africa knows David Wright (poet) and never heard of the baseball player. This encyclopedia is intended for all English language speakers so we can't really put Americans before non-Americans and baseball players before politicians. Extremely famous sports stars are different. For example, Michael Jordan goes directly to the basketball player even though there are other people named Michael Jordan (Michael Jordan (disambiguation)). Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but why should Ryan Howard for example or when I search Nick Evans, i get some rugby player who from what i can tell is not "Michael Jordan-esque". the page redirects you to a list of 7 Nick Evanses. Why is that guy considered better and more "search atomaticlly to his own page-worthy?" than David Wright? Is it his playing on a nationaly team because Wright will be doing that this march. I just dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. The other Ryan Howard is a bit part fictional character so I don't think that's really a big issue. As for Nick Evans, it does look a bit weird. Although I don't think the baseball player has a greater overall notability then the New Zealender rugby player, there isn't a great reason for the page to redirect to the rugby player over the others. These issues are complicated and sometimes contentious (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). You can bring this issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and see what other editors say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Per Samir's suggestion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas, I've filed a mediation request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. Thanks for trying... Simon Dodd (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that we settled the matter and thank you for the mediation. Bearian's comments about WP policy give credence to my view. I don't see why this has to be dragged out. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not going to any RFM. I waste enough time with my own WP drama, I don't have time for drama I'm not involved with. The Mediation Cabal thing was something I tried on a whim. It's not something I usually get involved with and considering my initial lack of success, it's not something which I plan on making into a career :) Good luck, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Somers

Got your message. Help would be much appreciated. The WFAN reference names a lot of TV work he did (some of it is still in the talk page). I'm not sure where to incorporate it, so if you have time, take a stab at it. Thanks. SERSeanCrane (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcomed

Thanks for the welcome. I'm just tidying up spelling and grammar errors as I procastinate by reading random articles. Might as well be slightly productive as I waste my time! Right, let's try this 4 tilda thing... Bigger digger (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Your signature apparently works! That's a cool name, by the way.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. re your comments at RPP for Gary Shaw

Hello Brewcrewer. I saw the comments on the IP's talk page. If he returns, please report to me or another admin right away. Now I cannot semi-protect an article that was vandalized just once since September. Regards, Húsönd 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again

....for your support. It is very much appreciated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to let you know that I have put a request for reconsideration at user:PhilKnight's talk page.

I am reminded of the Lewis Carroll verses from Father William. 

`You are old,' said the youth, `and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak--
Pray how did you manage to do it?'

'In my youth,' said his father, `I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.'

In my old age I shall be able to finish the goose. :) Shalom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/January&oldid=1139308061"