1. It has been for a while 2. its well written 3. Its not decreasing the quality of the page 4. the title itself is catchy 5. it summarizes the basic points very well. 6. it is not a trivia section (even if it was i dont see the problem with trivia sections) 7. no one else seems to have a problem with it 8. it give this article a nice personal touch 9. it lists facts that have no other appropriate place in the article.
1. It has been for a while 2. its well written 3. Its not decreasing the quality of the page 4. the title itself is catchy 5. it summarizes the basic points very well. 6. it is not a trivia section (even if it was i dont see the problem with trivia sections) 7. no one else seems to have a problem with it 8. it give this article a nice personal touch 9. it lists facts that have no other appropriate place in the article.
Most importantly: at no point has there been any and I mean ANY dscussion on the removal of this section. i would say that if a section that someone put a lot of hard work on and a page that that same person put a lot of work on has to be deleted there should be some discussion. Not to just a deletion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.228.169.184|72.228.169.184]] ([[User talk:72.228.169.184|talk]]) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Most importantly: at no point has there been any and I mean ANY discussion on the removal of this section. i would say that if a section that someone put a lot of hard work on and a page that that same person put a lot of work on has to be deleted there should be some discussion. Not to just a deletion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.228.169.184|72.228.169.184]] ([[User talk:72.228.169.184|talk]]) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're right, but if you look closely you'll see that all the facts within the section are already included in other parts of the article. --''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:You're right, but if you look closely you'll see that all the facts within the section are already included in other parts of the article. --''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well dude not to be rude but whose fault is that? I put a serious amount of energy into this article and I made sure that WHEN i wrote it that there was no doubling up of information. Lets just put it back the way it was. By the by should we be having this discussion on the talk page of monticello?
Revision as of 01:07, 17 February 2009
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Húsönd19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)
thank you
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question
Hello,
While you and I have disagreed quite a bit on that one article, I would like to ask you if you think I have made any comment that could be perceived as antisemitic. Feel free to say what you want here, I will not hold it against you in any way. I would like to know because I do not consider myself an anti-semite and if I have ever given that impression I would very much like to correct it. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to distinguish between all the editors at the Gaza conflict article, but no, I don't recall any specific statements that clearly indicated that its author was an antisemite. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brewcrewer, you commented on the talk page of the admin who closed this discussion as delete. I wanted to let you know that I put the deletion up for review. As far as I know, any editor can comment there, and your input would be welcome. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I beat you to it. I had the deletion admin's talkpage watchlisted and saw your notice. I wouldn't have done the DRV myself; "my experience tells me this won't get overturned." But I guess it's worth a shot. Btw, I noticed your work at the Gaza conflict page, you're doing a great job there especially under the circumstances. Every once in a while I stop by there, but I have to be in the right mood. I'm sure you know what I mean. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. I ain't going there. You can dramatize away as you please. You should know, that in general, talking to editors (something I learned from User:Elonka) gets far better results then insulting templates. If you would like to get a problematic editor like Wikifan12345 to calm down, the best course of action is to be empathetic and ask nicely before plastering his talk page with templates. Templates breeds insults which breeds more unnecessary drama. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already been tried. RomaC asked Wikifan12345 to cease personal attacks at 08:15, 3 February 2009; Wikifan12345 not only ignored that, he deleted the warning from his talk page and carried on making personal attacks. It's time for a block now. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RomaC was one of the people that he was arguing with at the talkpage. I wouldn't make a big deal out of his template. In any case, he recently returned and all indications are that he will no longer act uncivilly. I really can't understand why you're so itching to block him. In any case, I'm not really interested in your obsession with Wikifan12345. Take your issues up at his talkpage or at WP:AE. Best of luck, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)22:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments at Gaza conflict
Technically it would be ad hominems. But I don't get it. What's the attack? Saying I welcomed their input? That they got themselves blocked? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take a moment to read what I said literally. I think you are reading sarcasm into or implications that were not intended. I had already clarified the remark with this post -- 13 minutes before you contacted me.[1] You might note that I even respond to Roma's joke with a serious comment (followed by a different joke). I think this is in line with what I've been saying at the article generally, what I said after John's blockk,[2] what I said after Tundrabuggy's[3] and even what I say to vandals like I did recently here[4] and here[5]. I welcome everyone's input and I really do think it is unfortunate that users sometimes lose their ability to speak because they were too passionate. I think it is problematic when editors are blocked and moreso when they share the same perspective.
I think you've misread me and misread my comment. I think my comment could only be problematic if one reads sarcasm into it or some sort of implication that was not intended. And if I may be blunt, when you respond to a comment according to the malicious intent you're read into it, you are not assuming good faith. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JGGardiner, it is easy to not assume good faith here sometimes when other editors are constantly sending one to various forums in an effort to get our side blocked. I think if you look over the record you will see that, much like crime statistics, all that are sanctioned are those who are reported. Then at the hearing, all the buddies chime in. In fact, my block was without notice nor was Ieven told in time to defend myself. In fact it was "my buddy brewcrewer" who told me where I could find the ban discussion intiated by Cerejota. The banning admin told me later that he was not required to allow me to defend myself or even notify me of the hearing, though listened to (and was influenced by) comments from the other side. Brewcrewer and I (and others) both have been reported several times by users on this page for "edit warring" and 3RR etc. and the pro-Palestinian editors have come to "court" to throw stones, figuratively speaking. Then one gets comments like this one [6] where we are accused of "taking marching orders" from CAMERA and being "CAMERA Rangers" etc, it is easy to start feeling a little paranoid. Sometimes it gets hard to assume good faith when there actually are ogres behind every tree. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brewcrewer. It has come to my attention that you have moved the page Albert Hammond, Jr. recently, and in my opinion the page move was made in a hurry without everyone's consensus over the matter, so I have decided that a discussion will be taking place to discuss about the page move, if you have any reason to support the page move that you've made earlier, feel free to post it in the discussion page, best of wishes, no harm intended, peace. Signed, kotakkasut08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
South Park Mexican
There is a dispute, and I am personally curious about what the right thing is to be done, on the South Park Mexican article. Should his child molestation conviction be noted in the introductory paragraph? I really don't know. I hope you can help (like you did on the Recluse article, thank you). Belasted (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm leaning towards disagreeing with you one this one. When a notable person has a minor conviction it should not be noted mentioned in the lede. However, this case is different because a major part of his notability is the molestation issue. Also, due to this conviction he's currently in prison and will be there for while. I do agree that the phrasing is a bit awkward and can be reformatted a bit. We might also add some more information about his music career to the lede to minimize the awkwardness. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Swedish Sunni Muslims, 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 hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Belasted, I'm happy to see you take WP:V seriously. The same cannot be said about most editors around here. The list at Recluse was far more egregious because it dealt with living people and was sort of defamatory. This soap opera stuff is not that dangerous. As a matter of fact, most of these fiction stuff are unfortunately unsourced. That's one of the reasons I stay away from there. With these type of stuff, I would suggest you tag it with {{unreferencedsection}} or {{fact}} and bring it up at the talkpage before deleting it. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. No hard feelings. I guess I was trying to be ironic on the article talk and maybe I said it poorly. I guess that's what happens when you edit so late at night.
About the general problem, I'm Canadian so hockey metaphors come to my mind easily. So if you'll indulge me:
A lot of hockey players will think that a referee is biased and sometimes they are. Sometimes it seems that the ref will call a little hook or slash against one team but allow it when the other team does it. As a player you can get mad at the double-standard but that won't do anything. The best way to deal with it is to make sure you don't give the ref an excuse to call a penalty in the first place.
I don't think any editors were on their best behaviour at the article. Or maybe a few that I could count on one hand. I think that a few got away with little slashes here and there. We should all do better and especially those who feel the refs don't like them. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to Sandstein's page for clarification regarding the first notice put up and he said it was not in the proper format. When I suggested a format he said that was not correct either. By that token it strikes me that my banning from the article was not in the proper format either, so I've asked him to please take a look at my earlier banning in the archive and see how that differs. He seemed to think Cerejota's comment should have been taken to ANI rather than ANE. I really can't see why mine was adjudicated there if his was not. Anyway, keep an eye on his page, maybe we will learn something about finding our way around the maze of courtrooms, lol. I'm not big on drama, but if I'm being thrust into it against my will, I might as well go to drama school. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
Hi Brewcrewer, I appreciate you're aware of these restrictions, however, just to confirm:
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
you may know the answer to this given your other interests, and i dont feel like looking through the rules, but is there policy against having an article on a single game? i think game 6 of the 98 nba finals could use its own article (there are countless sources just on whether or not jordan pushed off russell on the final shot). Is there some rule that says no articles on single games? Nableezy (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on single games; for example, every Superbowl and Orangebowl has its own article. I don't know about an article about a single basketball games, however. I guess the difference is that football playoffs is generally just one game, not a series. So in basketball the article is just about the series, not any single game within the series. But I don't think there's a specific rule against articles about one game. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i was looking at a comparison with single baseball world series games, cant really find individual games having their own article, even the game interrupted by an eartquake in 89 is in the series article. Ill try to work on it and guess ill find out if somebody wants to delete it. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of want to delete the articles on the city of Detroit and anything that even mentions the Pistons or Isiah Thomas. Or at least make it clear that the pistons are among the worst franchises in all of sports (i think a HRW cite should be sufficient). Nableezy (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my knowledge of basketball history is not up to par. I didn't know Chicago hates Detroit. I guess before Chicago was winning their championships, they were held back by the BadBoys. I'm actually the leading editor at the Isiah Thomas article. I got there because I actually felt bad for the guy and there were so many editors taking out their hatred on his WP article. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago hates Detroit with a passion (I think I can speak on behalf of the city). It just wasnt that they were held back, or how they were held back (dirtiest team of all time), but when we finally beat them in the playoffs every Piston besides Joe Dumars walked off the court in the final minute so they wouldnt have to congratulate the Bulls. The only reason I still slightly like Dumars. Far as Thomas goes, I think there are people from Chicago and New York that hate him so much I do not envy trying to keep that article in check. But the man did kill an entire basketball league (the CBA) and then went on to destroy one of the marquee names in the game, the Knicks. I wouldnt feel bad for him, but good luck in keeping that one quiet. Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those Badboys were really a cast of characters. When I play basketball with my friends (Tundrabuggy, et. al. :-) they're always comparing my to Rodman. I don't have much of a shooting touch but I'm always creating a ruckus at D. Kinda like my WP behavior, at times :-) Thomas is really the story of Job. How the mighty have fallen. This recent suicide brouhaha, where he blaming his overdose on his own daughter really put the cherry on top. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my favorite Thomas story is that he was supposedly supposed to be on the roster for the first dream team, and jordan allegedly said if thomas is on the team he wont be so they left thomas off. around here we call that an in your face. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this category is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to (are members of) it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you, the creator of the category, in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:United States District Court for the District of North Dakota]] to articles/categories that belong in it.
I have also blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.
If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.
So Brett knocks A-Fraud/A-Roid off the back oages....
well Joe got that one right. Selig trying to suspend him? Yeah, good luck with that. A-Rod's an idiot but Selig is making himself look worse. StarM01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selig's an idiot, but these days I just consider A-Rod a cartoon character. Btw, I rarely see typos in section headings, but then again, my brain wasn't being fried by UV rays for the last few weeks :) --brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on cartoon character. I'm trying so hard to switch gears to baseball -- esp since I have a free trial of MLB Network - but I'm not ready. Friend trying to talki me into playing in his fantasy league. Do you play? I've played fantasy football but never baseball. I find the concept of managing a team for 162 games daunting. StarM03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have patience to go through the entire article checking which links are repeated and which aren't really needed. One thing is forsure, the previous version was better then the way too overlinked reverted version. Best,--brewcrewer(yada, yada)20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan shows that the majority of the links you broke:
aren't linked anywhere else in the article. I'm afraid your assessment of which version is better is based on a spurious premise. I hope you don't make a habit of this. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment can be different them mine, which is one the great things about this collaborative effort. However, calling my assessment "spurious", is not within the WP:CIVIL requirements and borders on a WP:NPA. Don't make this into a habit. Best,--brewcrewer(yada, yada)21:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful reading of my comment will show you I didn't call your assessment spurious, although I do disagree with it. I'm beginning to get the impression that you can be somewhat hasty at times. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid comments on your behaviour I suggest you either defend it or change it. It's been three days, and you have neither restored the links you broke or explained why you believe they should remain broken. I came here because I thought you might have a genuinely good reason for doing what you did and I wanted to hear what it was rather than simply reverting your edit. From your replies I don't believe that's the case anymore, and I can't see any alternative but to revert an edit I believe detracts from the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I think you are wikistalking me. I have translated my name numerous times including on Anonmoos' page. It seems that I have to make a section about my user name on my user page. I will be sure to mention that it was your curiosity that prompted this explanation. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Falastine fee Qalby" means "Palestine in my heart", but it makes use of a highly informal and slipshod (not to mention inconsistent!) form of transcription from Arabic, and the pronunciation which it indicates seems to represent a confused indeterminate mish-mash of Classical Arabic and colloquial dialect, without being clearly one thing or the other. That's why I teased him with "kalby" -- since with his inaccurate transcription practices, "Kalby"[sic] could well be a transcription of قلبي or كلبي ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Slipshod"? Hmmm... what do the reliable sources say? >:) I know very little Arabic. For example, "al Jazeera" means "the Jazeera", which doesn't seem to help much in understanding it. :( Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article on al-! Jazeerah most basically and literally means "island", but it (or related forms derived from it) is used in several geographic names which don't really refer to islands... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A scholarly transliteration of the pure Classical Arabic form would be Filastīn fī qalbī (but with a special symbol for the "emphatic" t which is not to easy to use in my particular browser setup), as I pointed out in remarks which Fee Qalby has already deleted from his user talk page. You could look up the transcriptions of the individual words in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (but qalbī has a suffix which won't show up in the dictionary entry). AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save this crap for an article where the rules for transliteration are rigid. This is a user name, you are going overboard with this especially when your poor Arabic transliteration of your English user name was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off and very comical. Annamous (الناموس) is not close to Anonmoos and it means the mosquito. Hilarious and your hissy fit over my usernmame just adds to the fun and irony.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad that your knowledge of Classical Arabic seems to be somewhat limited -- الناموس meaning "mosquito" (or "mosquitos" collective) isn't even really pure Classical Arabic anyway, and the word has a quite different meaning in Classical Arabic itself. If I had wanted to transcribe my username exactly using the Arabic alphabet, I would have done so, but I didn't. I wanted to find the nearest interesting Arabic word that sounded similar to my username, which I did. AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not demanding that you use a scientific transliteration in your username (and in fact have no particular right to ask you to change your username in any way), but I still find it rather strange (perhaps bordering on the actively bizarre) that you transcribe the same basic Arabic long [i] vowel sound in three separate ways in your username: 1) "i" accompanied by silent "e", 2) "ee", 3) "y"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did welcome the world, maybe you can see why somebody would be offended from somebody changing it from Falastine fee Qalby (Palestine in my heart) to Falastine fee Kalby (Palestine in my dog) as that same place is in your heart as well. Seems pretty dickish and antagonistic for somebody who knows Arabic that well to do. Nableezy (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- since Fee Qalby started out on the Iryani article by referring to Haaretz as a disreputable tabloid (which it ain't) and using the word "adopted"[sic] in a rather dishonest way, demonstrating that he's more concerned with showing off his in-your-face posturing attitudes than with actually improving the article, therefore I didn't really feel much inclined to take a deferential approach. The Arabic letter qaf is often transliterated as "k" in informal ad-hoc transcriptions into English (or sometimes as "kh", "g" etc., depending on the vernacular dialect transcribed, as in "Khaddafi"/"Gaddafi"), and "Falastine fee" is exactly an informal ad-hoc transcription. The holy book of Islam was most often known as the "Koran" in English before the twentieth century (when it wasn't known as the "Alcoran"). AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are a smart person, you knew what you were doing and why you were doing it. You took the time to purposefully misspell the username just to piss off that user. Even if that user pissed you off before that, what was the point of doing that? Come off it, you did it just to insult the user, we both know this to be true. And then you did it again. Aint a point to that, all it does is get people deeper in the trenches, me and brewcrewer will never agree on a single point in a single article related to Israel and the Arab world. Probably have large dispute on the usage of "is" over "was", and probably let some incivility fly as well, but I am not going to intentionally insult him. I might intentionally insult his contribution, but not him. Nableezy (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the very first edit which Fee Qalbi made on the Iryani article [7] had an edit summary which seems to have been carefully chosen to be deliberately and intentionally annoying -- and as a result of that, and certain other of Fee Qalbi's actions, I became annoyed, and saw little reason to conceal my annoyance. I can respect those whose opinions I disagree with, but those whose attitudes seriously get in the way of article improvement is a more dificult matter. AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He insulted a newspaper, if you can call that an insult as every newspaper is biased, not you. You dont see a difference? And even if he did insult you, was this the best way to deal with, considering the amount of experience you have here opposed to Falastine fee Qalby's? Nableezy (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't personally insulted or offended, but on the other hand, Fee Qalby revealed himself to be either ignorant or arrogant -- and this was the first thing I saw done by Fee Qalby, but it did nothing to help set a constructive tone for future cooperative collaboration. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression", as they say... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If encouraging plagiarizing and violating copyright law wasn't bad enough, he is gone to a new low by lying about what I said and what what I have argued. Bring the diff where I said Haaretz is a 'disreputable tabloid' if you are not a liar (impossible since the diff doesn't exist, so you are a proven liar). I called Haaretz a 'biased newspaper' I even called it a generally reliable source[8], both of which I still back. You have lost what little credibility you had. And this ladies and gentlemen is what people have to deal with when crossing paths with user Anonmoos.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I offer my talkpage and my wisdom for all Wikipedians :-) If "Kalby" means "dog" it probably is "dickish and antagonistic" to purposefully interchange the two words. It depends on the context of course, of which I'm unfamiliar with.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
كلبي means my dog and would be transliterated as Kalby. Stepping aside from whether فلسطين (Palestine) should be transliterated Falastine of Filastin (which would be correct in Modern Standard Arabic), قلبي, meaning my heart would be transliterated Qalby in standard Arabic and some dialects. Anonmoos is correct that Falastine is used in many dialects of Arabic, including most of the ones that do not use the Q sound for all but a few words, but there are dialects that both use the Q (and it doesnt really sound like a Q but that is the closest we have) and use Falastine instead of Filastin for Palestine. Hope you enjoyed the Arabic lesson, it can get pretty confusing with all the dialects out there, some of which have even been said to be a complete language separate, though related, to Arabic. And dont even get me started on Moroccan 'Arabic', at least the rest of us understand each other. Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right that there are dialects where qaf is still a voiceless uvular stop in vernacular -- not the dialects with the largest numbers of speakers, however, or those commonly spoken in Palestine itself. Sorry if I overstated the case about it being a mixed pronunciation (though I still have my doubts as to how truly "basilectal" the pronunciation indicated by Fee Qalby's username is, and it's still the case that the use of "q" suggests a more careful scholarly type of transcription, while rest of his username uses a lax journalistic-type transcription, resulting in something of an internal mismatch)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the word to mean 'my dog' was not the worst of it. Actually, he later said that my motive behind choosing the phrase 'Palestine in my heart' was to annoy people and to be obnoxious. It is kind of sad when people find any pro-Palestinian declaration to be annoying and obnoxious. Ukhhh I don't even know how to deal with people like that. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no evidence that everything that you do on Wikipedia isn't done with the purpose of being annoying and obnoxious. Maybe if you dialed back your confrontational attitudes at least part of the time, then you would find it easier to work with people with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of different opinions -- something which is quite necessary to be successful in Wikipedia work. 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Translations can be tricky. Keep in mind that when JFK made his famous statement at Berlin, he was telling the world that he was a pastry. And don't forget the Hungarian phrasebook: "My hovercraft is full of eels", etc. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really kind of an urban legend (see Ich bin ein Berliner). Those who know about the matter say that while "Berliner" has had an additional meaning of a certain kind of pastry at some times and places in the German-speaking countries, it did not have this meaning among inhabitants of Berlin in 1963 (to get ultra-tangential from the original topic here...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he knows what he meant, he wrote it up at the top. I just think we shouldn't intentionally insult others, obviously offense is going to be taken at times and it can get pretty heated in some articles, my first interaction with brewcrewer was calling his contribution "bullshit", but needling somebody just for the sake of pissing them off should be frowned upon. Sorry for that brew, and again for calling your next contribution "bullshit", though they still werent that great ;) Nableezy (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptians would say 'bit matar fi albi' (we dont use the q) though that transliteration is probably wrong and somebody like Anonmoos could give you a better one. The Arabic is تمطر في قلبيNableezy (talk) 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I know a lot about linguistics, and the linguistics and phonology of several Semitic languages, but my ability to read and write Arabic text at any length is rather limited... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
double jeopardy
how about this one: that like jewels without ice; thats like China without rice; or the Holy Bible without Christ; or the Bulls without Mike; or crackheads without pipes; the village without (word removed); or hockey games without fights. My favorite part is the relation between Jesus to MJ :) Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take martyred Palestinians for 2000, al-Ex.
He survived many assassination attempts only to die from French cooking.
I can't believe we agree, but we did. I swear that had I gotten to your comment before posting, I would have voted different, you know, to keep being my uncivil self.... Srsly, this is a misuse of process if I have ever seen one an AfD not even a week after DRV, and not even a month after first AfD. However, the permatag and gazillion Afds at Israel and the apartheid analogy come to mind... We are bound to have things that are notable, encyclopedic, well-sourced, not OR, but people can't bear existing in an encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reason for checking, although, as I said, there is the same reason for checking almost anyone from all sides in that discussion, the results came back unrelated, why subjecy TB and BC to having their names up there? All involved saw that it was clean, so putting it to bed quickly, IMO, saves the innocent from extra discomfort. -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can only speak for myself, but if I were falsely accused of sockpuppetry I would have like to dramatize as much as possible just to embarrass my accuser when the result comes back negative. The accusations going around are really disgraceful. All non-pro-Palestinians are constantly being accused of being sockpuppets or working for CAMERA. A thread that I initiated resulted in me being warned. I would like that all non-pro-Palestinians go through a CU so that we can finally stop all these accusations. Then, when another accusation gets flung in our direction, the accuser should just be banned/blocked. End of story. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel this way, and you may want to consider an RfC/RfAr. A word of unasked for advice, though, is that in the past, editors who have been perceived as more "aggressive", for lack of a better word, in their inter-editor relationships, have been viewed with more askance than those who have been able to remain more placid, all else equal. It is an outgrowth of the consensus-based processes here, that, perhaps subconsciously, people tend to view more vocal players, often, as less interested in working "with" and more interested in working against. Now, I have to go back and refresh my steward candidacy and hope that maybe someone else dropped by. As much as I like volunteering for the overall projects, this is nerve-wracking :} -- Avi (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I would have thought that editors that continuously make baseless accusations would be considered "aggresive", not those that ask for its cessation. Btw, I support your candidacy for stewardship. You can copy and paste this diff there. I can't be bothered going to Meta-whatever and opening an account just to vote for your stewardship. :-) --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monticello
This section belongs in this page for the following reasons:
1. It has been for a while 2. its well written 3. Its not decreasing the quality of the page 4. the title itself is catchy 5. it summarizes the basic points very well. 6. it is not a trivia section (even if it was i dont see the problem with trivia sections) 7. no one else seems to have a problem with it 8. it give this article a nice personal touch 9. it lists facts that have no other appropriate place in the article.
Most importantly: at no point has there been any and I mean ANY discussion on the removal of this section. i would say that if a section that someone put a lot of hard work on and a page that that same person put a lot of work on has to be deleted there should be some discussion. Not to just a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.169.184 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well dude not to be rude but whose fault is that? I put a serious amount of energy into this article and I made sure that WHEN i wrote it that there was no doubling up of information. Lets just put it back the way it was. By the by should we be having this discussion on the talk page of monticello?
