User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/September

ANI

Jaakobou opened a report there about the anon IP's edits to Operation Defensive Shield. I mentioned your name in the course of the discussion and thought I would let you know, in case you have something you want to add. Here's the link. Tiamut^talk 10:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK who put the hex on Muts pitchers?

Ollie now out for the season too? StarM 01:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his injury is a sign that the hex is over.He can stay on the DL for a while, for all most Mets fans care.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fans oare on the DL now too. RIP Mets season StarM 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

New York is in a pretty polarized state, with you guys doing so great and the disaster we're gong through. This made me cry and laugh. They can't call up any players for the 40-player expansion because they'll be nothing left in the minors. I can't imagine a team has ever has a similar problem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know, shocked when I read that. Sounds as if it's a depth issue for years to come though. Kinda like Jets at QB. Happy weekend! School start back? StarM 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharp eye

Looks like we have some simptoms of Commonsense dysfunction syndrome (CDS)

Sharp eye from above ( as an American eagle or better) is appriciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haaretz#This_is_summary_of_Landau_discussion

--Rm125 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

I'm not well versed regarding issues surrounding Israel/Palestine but I am a little bit concerned with the sudden growth to Fonda's article in regard to the TIFF issue. The first addition seemed fine, I was a little concerned over the second addition, mostly because it seemed to be hammering home a point, but with the addition tonight, I'm more concerned. The last addition doesn't seem to me to be directly tied to Fonda's signing a letter and now seems to me at least, to be using the Fonda article as the platform for the wider issue, and if that is the case, it doesn't belong on the article. On the other hand, I really don't want to get into the middle of the wider issue, so I'm not sure. Does this last seem to be overkill, at least in regard to it being added to the Fonda article? I note that the addition was not made to any other articles [1], despite the fact that the letter was signed by over 50 people, and then I looked and see that this wasn't added to any other articles by the other editor who posted this latest issue either [2]. This really raises my concern. Thoughts on this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever since the Vietnam days, Fonda has been a lightning rod, so I'm not surprised she has gotten the most wiki-attention of all the signers. As for the overkill, you're probably right, but I would sit on it for a few weeks till everyone forgets about it, before going in and proportionating things out.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I need to discover whether there is a Conflict of Interest, the obvious thing to do is to ask the people concerned. If this is wrong, then please tell me how I should go about it. The guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest says "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline" 86.157.70.95 (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty to put a tag because of vandalism.

Sorry to bother you but you asked for it.. I will be brief since Wiki KGB ( Commisar Malik Shabbaz) is watching me ( he already gave me a link to let me know that he knows that I talk to suspects)So I will be brief here because I know he is watching me even here. In fact I used his link to get here..( Hi Malik, How are you,body, please don't forget your pills)In any case I made this Landau shmock piece very short one as Jaakobou recommended but the gang (Relax, Malik cool off this is from love I am talking about you)Shabbaz and Nablezy don't want me to place a tag since they know they gonna loose eventually. I want to ask your advice why they claim they can report me and ban me. Is there any truth in their positiom? What is the a proper way to place a tag so I can attract more opinions? What is the best way to do it? Their strategy is to bury is as much as possible and to scare me off. Thanks. Shabbat Shalom.--Rm125 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rm125, Nice to hear you. I'm gonna give you a little tough love now, so my apologies in advance: Calm the fuck down. You gotta chill yelling at everyone.

One thing you have to learn around here is that making sense and being right doesn't necessarily win you the argument. You can't get all hot and bothered about every misjustice that goes on around here or there's no way you'll last. The way of life at Wikipedia, especially at Israel related articles, is that there are editors adding stuff and deleting stuff because they either like it or they don't like it. Things are decided by a "consensus", which is the politically correct term for "majority wins." In the Haaretz case, there's a majority that disagrees with you (and me), so there's nothing that can be done at this time. Some of the opposers are just mistakenly applying wiki policy and some are just pov pushers opposing its inclusion because they just don't like it and they want to protect the reputation of Landau and/or the Haaretz.

Sometimes you'll get neutral editors to agree and correctly apply wiki policy and sometimes you won't. But when you lose you just move on and forget about the issue for the time being. You can't go around insulting and yelling at other editors. If Malik Shabbaz wants to follow you around, let him. There's one editor that follows me around to practically every single article that I edit. If you're acting in a civil manner and applying wiki policy correctly there's nothing they can do about you.

I think you're a good guy and would make a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I wouldn't give you this little speech otherwise. Sorry if I'm being a bit condescending. Sincerely--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC),

Thanks for advice. I truly value, yada,yada. I am not as sensitive as it looks-sometimes I enjoy to play roles.May be Hamlet some day... So talk anyway you like as long as it sincere. I've got your point. I came to the same conclusion basically. Look- it's jungle out here. This is the reason nobody takes Wikipedia seriously. But it is great tool fot a quick reference and another thing-people are ignorant and lazy. Wikipedia is great for lazy.Lotsa Saudis running around and teaching democratic values..I still think there is value to be here. On the other side it is a black hole I wasted lots of time here and it comes with the price. In any case have a goood week and till next yada.yada P.S. BTW the whole Haaretz thing is a learning exersize. Who cares about David Landau?( OK it is a joke, Nableezy. Don't jump around saying rm125 doesn't care. The truth is I don't care or may be I care a lot.. If you want to know fer shur it is "may be", Nablazee--Rm125 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

brew, I know we havent gotten along all that well in the past few weeks, but could you please convince Rm125 to stop calling me a Saudi? nableezy - 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125: Please stop calling Nableezy a Saudi. There's nothing to indicate that he's Saudi and he doesn't like being called Saudi. And if you want to try not getting blocked again, you may want to chime in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rm125 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: ).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will voluntarily withdraw the report if Rm125 self-reverts and promises not to continue reverting over the objections of other users. After he self-reverts if you want to remove the material again go ahead. nableezy - 07:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anne Coulter article

Hi, I'm familiar with WP:OVERLINK.

You might be aware that Wikipedia has a function that changes the format of dates to reflect the preferences of each user. But it only works on dates that are wikilinked. I've seen other users rountinely linkify dates for this reason, so I thought it was accepted practice.

But correct me if I'm wrong. Is there anything specific on this in the Manual of Style, other than the general rule against excessive linking?

Regards,

Hibernian (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, on further investigation I see that the policy has now been changed. Hard to keep up with things round here.

Manual of Style: "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)."

So I stand corrected. Hibernian (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool :) Its just that anyone who is reading a biography about Ann Coulter is not that interested in what happened in Mongolia on her birthday, so linking her birthday is useless. My opinion of course. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

• Historicist (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your opinion, please. Would you call this article Sant'Anna, Trani, since the building is now a church, or or Scolagrande synagogue, since it was built as a medieval synagogue? The Great Mosque of Cordoba is now a cathedral and Hagia Sophia is called Hagia Sophia.Historicist (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would go with Sant'Anna, Trani since that's what its called now. The other examples that you give still go with the original name despite the change in status. You can always bold the original name in the lede and include all applicable synagogue categories. My opinion of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism and anti-Israel activism

There are now two, well-designed studies published in peer-reviewed journals demonstrating the link between Antisemitism and anti-Israel activism. I have added the material to the article on New antisemitism but my attempt to add it as a sentence to the more important (as in ~2k hits per day) article on Antisemitism has been reverted, bu a lone editor. I think that the findings of theses studies merit a sentence in the New antisemitsm section of Antisemitism. I would appreciate your opinion.Historicist (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article, but real-life is sorta taking over these days and I don't think I have time for such heavy wiki-stuff.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

removing others' comments

Please do not remove other editors' comments from Talk pages, as you did with mine on User_talk:Arabmaniac Talk page. Thanks! RomaC (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Though reasonable people may differ on exactly when comments should be removed, you were incorrect when you referred to the edits in question as vandalism, and Brewcrewer was right to point that out. If you feel that he (and now I) am wrong about this, I'm happy to expand on just why what you did was wrong. IronDuke 01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm aware of the don't bite the newbs guideline but when someone comes in with a contentious username and proceeds to fire off five POV edits that are childishly-written, grammatically-mangled and terribly misspelled to an article under general sanctions, I regard that as unconstructive disruptive and issue the mildest of warnings. But please do expand, I really do have an open mind. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You are free to challenge the newbie on all the grounds you mention above, if you feel that's justified. However, none of what you describe is vandalism. Please see here for more, though I can quote the relevant bits to you: "The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand. Even Wikipedia veterans occasionally introduce material which is not ideal from a NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself." And also "[S]ometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g., there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language)... assume good faith." Thanks for keeping an open mind. IronDuke 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ID, yes POV itself is not vandalism. Repeatedly removing long standing text without discussion is vandalism though and the editor in question did exactly that. A vandalism template may not have been ideal, (a welcome-npov template probably would have been better) but the actual content of the template shows no issue. We only notice that it was added as a vandalism template through the edit summary, but the actual edit says "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, your recent edits, such as those you made to Gaza War, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please contribute on the article's Talk Page". There is nothing in that, besides the Twinkle edit summary, that is either incorrect or even a reference to vandalism. The edits were not "constructive" and they were reverted and the user, after changing their username, should be participating on the article talk instead of continually making edits that remove consensus based text, which does become vandalism when it is repeatedly done. nableezy - 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about what vandalism is. Pushing POV without discussion isn't, for example. It may be wrong in oh so many ways, but it's not vandalism. And Twinkle, AFAIK, is an anti-vandalism tool, thus the edit summary. That'd be another layer of wrongness. I think RomaC was acting in good faith, and may well be right that this is a problem user, but the terminology is important. IronDuke 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The terminology is the issue (and Twinkle has a rollback (AGF) feature as well), but the terminology that brewcrewer removed was not in the edit summary, it was the actual content of the edit to the user talk page which I quoted above. Is there anything in that message, the actual message not the edit summary, that is improper? nableezy - 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary counts as part of the message. And it's always best to leave a personalized note, I think. If it had been me, I would have enquired after this user's choice of username, for example... hard to do with a template. IronDuke 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, but it is not part of what Brewcrewer removed. Is there anything that was in the material removed that was incorrect or otherwise objectionable? nableezy - 02:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that it was a vandalism warning, the whole thing was... improper. But I'm really just speaking of terming it as vandalism. I'm not really saying whether any warning at all would have been proper, or proper to remove. Just how it was put in the edit summary. Clear? IronDuke 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I accept that. Just that this specific thread began as an issue with the removal of comments, not the removal of an edit summary. But I agree the edits themselves should not have been called vandalism in the edit summary, while still maintaining that the content of the warning was accurate. nableezy - 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. IronDuke 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the discussion on how it might have been inappropriate for me to mildly warn User_talk:Arabmaniac for his edits. Instructive, thanks. RomaC (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure you've quite got it, but it would be difficult to make clearer than it already is. IronDuke 01:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest I do believe kindness and civility go a long way on Wikipedia. But as for Arabmaniac, well he soon ran afoul of other editors, then seems to have faded away. To help me assume good faith I have a question: I notice Brewcrewer welcomed "Arabmaniac" without even a word regarding his disruptive edits. Would that be the case if the username were, say "Jewmaniac" and the editor were unilaterally adding mangled, anti-Israel content to contentious articles? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You need help assuming good faith? In any case, the opposite of "Arab" is not "Jew." The closest parallel would probably be Israelimaniac. IronDuke 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes sometimes I do need help assuming good faith. Not suggesting perfect symmetry in the hypothetical, will repeat it: I notice Brewcrewer welcomed "Arabmaniac" without even a word regarding his disruptive edits. Would that be the case if the username were, say "Israelinutjob" or "Jewfanatic" etc. and the editor were unilaterally adding mangled, anti-Israel content to contentious articles? Personally I doubt Brewcrewer would simply welcome such an editor and remove others' warnings from their Talkpage. There's my problem with assuming good faith. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think your "problem," as you put it, is that you're comparing apples to desk chairs (and that needing "help" to AGF vitiates its purpose). But I'll let BC speak for himself, if he wants to. IronDuke 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's a hypothetical, sure we all know the answer anyway, no need to continue. Thanks IronDuke for your time and attention take care and maybe see you round. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of value judgments

I was just wondering in this article Arif Alikhan for example, it states that Alikhan had a "long and distinguished career" -- I have seen much on WP of this nature, such as referring to something being "inspired by..." There is a reference given [3] but it is not a quote. It seems to be someone's interpretation of the data, which may easily be interpreted that way, but it does not seem very encyclopedic to me. Can I have your thoughts when you have a chance? Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a chance, but at first glance it looks like its violative of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Hi, could you point me to where there was consensus to move that page to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War? Some of the entries are from before that war began, so it makes little sense to move it there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article talkpage, the correct forum for this discussion. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Aanes which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like my edits were minor. Don't think I have much of an opinion either way re its notability, but will take a look if time permits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)