User talk:MaxBrowne

Sammie Libman

Hi there, I have found a page on her Facebook that talks about a whole bio of Sammie Libman. However, there is no bio on her besides from her Facebook and YouTube whatsoever. I really hope to get this page in working order. Thank you, Sutowe12 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For wikipedia you really need coverage in independent sources, not facebook or blog posts, and not personally written by the subject of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 awards from 1914

You may find it interested to read the article Grandmaster_(chess) and also the talk page. It's a complex issue. SunCreator (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the catch on this one.[1] Usually a Wikipedia footnote follows its source, so I didn't think to check the previous source (though I should've). I've moved the footnote to the end of the paragraph to make it clearer that it covers both of those sentences. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

I'm sorry to say I again reverted this edit: [2]. I'll be happy to discuss more on the article's talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Following on a discussion of the issue at ANI (you were not a named party there), I've taken a look at the article and just wanted to drop by to explain with regards to your restoration of content that multiple reproductions of material does not eliminate copyright protection in it. Generally, the best thing to do in such a case is to rewrite the content (outside of the cited quote, of course) in your own words so that the information can remain without any potential copyright issues. For more on our local practices regarded previously published tet, please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit summary

Hi Max, I'm not sure why you keep edit warring over stuff like this without discussion. I left a note on the talk page specifically addressing this, and stated that in my edit summary that I had done so. Why would you revert without even looking there?

In this case, the Associated Press provided a different translation than the one you want. I'd rather follow the reliable source in this instance, but if you have other reliable sources that back up your translation, I'm personally fine with either. Let's make sure the source gets added to the article, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's thousands of reliable sources for the "Mother of God" translation, which is by far the most common rendition in English language media.MaxBrowne (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; Googling both, the "Mother of God" translation appears to outnumber the other around 2:1, and is clearly the better translation. More than the edit itself, I was simply frustrated to see your rhetorical question suggesting you hadn't bothered to look at the talk page about this, and that you hadn't chosen to respond with a source. It'd save some time and reverts if we could simply talk about these things like this, or the copyright violation from earlier today, on the talk page.

If you'd like, please do let me know your thoughts on the rest of the changes. Hopefully this new version is sourced enough to satisfy me and detailed enough to satisfy you, if that's a fair summary of the difference. I noticed recently that this had become by far the most-visited article for WikiProject Human Rights; it'd be a great one to get up to Good Article status down the road if you're interested. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't look at the talk page all that often and I'd rather not have to consult and get into a deep discussion over every single edit. I'm also frustrated, frustrated by your pedantry regarding sourcing. In general I don't like it when relevant information is deleted from an article because of some perceived technical violation of wiki policy. That was a great quote from Feygin, and it was sourced. Why delete it? Why not just reword the other text if you're worried about copyright? Also, I actually consider Pussy Riot to be a more "reliable" source of information on Pussy Riot than most media, including AP. There is a *lot* of misinformation about them out there, particularly in Russian media like RT. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the difference in our viewpoints is that I'm much less persuaded that a wiki-editor's take on sadomasochistic themes, etc., is relevant information. As for the Feygin quotation, I agree it's funny, but it didn't seem essential enough for me to rewrite those sentences on behalf of the original plagiarizing editor. Sometimes I do this, and sometimes I don't (and you've seen me do both on this article). But when you said you felt it was important, I was willing to rephrase it for you, which you were unfortunately too busy to do in re-adding the plagiarized sentences. I'm doing my best to meet you halfway here.

Anyway, if you won't use the article talk page even when I direct you to it in my article edit summary, I suppose I can keep watching here. When we want to communicate about edits, we can do it here, and I'll put links at the article's talk page. Like it or not, we'll occasionally need to talk to each other if we're going to keep collaborating on this article; you have questions for me and I have questions for you. Nobody's asking you for a "deep discussion on every single edit", but if you're reverting an edit I just made, we obviously disagree, and need to figure out which is better, or some sort of compromise version. Sometimes that's fast (as above), sometimes it's slow, but otherwise the page just turns into pointless revert-warring.

Regardless, I really do appreciate your work on this article. Even if I haven't agreed with all your edits, the more eyes that are on this, the better an article this will turn into. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in, looking for one more source

Hey Max,

You know the sources for this article better than I do. Do we have a source for this sentence: "This was at a time when church services were not in session and only a few parishioners were in the cathedral"? A passing IP tagged this as citation needed, and I can't turn up a citation for it on my first pass through Google. Thanks for the help with reorganization, btw. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video evidence supports the claim that no service was taking place. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be picky... but do we have a video that shows the crowd, too? I've seen the official Pussy Riot video and one from a front row cell phone, but I'm not sure I've seen anything to show how many people were in the church. I'll be surprised if YouTube links will hold up for sources in a GA review, but I'm willing to give it a try. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok maybe remove the "few people at the cathedral" claim. Does examining a video and using common sense count as original research? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the claim. If it's to say one of them is wearing a yellow mask, no big deal. But for a larger detail, it does start to raise questions like "if this is true, and important, why isn't it in any of these thousands of sources"? Is this just a wiki user wanting to make a case of her/his own?

But I just thought of a new way to Google this and got a source for both the no service and empty cathedral: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-absurd-and-outrageous-trial-of-pussy-riot.html. I'll add to the article shortly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly a NPOV article :) MaxBrowne (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. =) Somebody might make a case that this is an op-ed. But New Yorker's so legendary for fact-checking even its fiction that I think we're on solid ground. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR

Hello, MaxBrowne. You have new messages at Devilishlyhandsome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dates

Hi Max, noticed this edit summary [3] and just thought I'd explain. I actually have zero preference for whether the article has US or UK style dates; if you feel like the reverse is more country-appropriate, that's fine with me too. I'm simply trying to keep the article internally consistent per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Sorry you appear to continue to find this process frustrating, but I'm grateful for your input to the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I started a stub article today on Pussy Riot lawyer Mark Feygin to avoid the direct link to the Russian wiki. Your help would be welcome if you're interested in pitching in--I'm limited to English sources only. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a topic for numerous heated discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, resulting in the current compromise which says to retain the format used by the first editor to add a date. Unfortunately the decision was that WP:STRONGNAT applies only to English speaking countries, otherwise WP:DATERET applies. Like most of the world Russia uses dd/mm/yy. Many people have a strong dislike of the mm/dd/yy format, and in my opinion it is only appropriate for articles with strong ties to the US or Canada (which uses all 3 formats). MaxBrowne (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I hear you. I'm an American, but I set my default reference template to dd/mm as well. I do try to abide by the date policies when I notice a trend in the article one way or another. In this case, I've no personal objection to your switching in the other direction if you've a strong preference. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For being the primary writer in bringing Pussy Riot up to Good Article status. Your work is appreciated! Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE

Not very much surprised: [4]. So this means that WCF and wcfchess.org are unrelated ? --Askedonty (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess players never talk about the "WCF". The guy's a total kook. http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009383/the-april-fools-prank-that-was-and-wasnt-040413.aspx MaxBrowne (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I knew it was the FIDE so I wondered about the Wikipedia World Chess Federation redirection page. Amazing that the guy really weights the money put at stakes. --Askedonty (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of confirmed sock

I'm looking for evidence that Elvis lives. Can you point me to the evidence of the claim. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, my post above is suppose to be humorous, but when I read it back I thought it could be misread as harassing. I know your not making the claim, your finding the claim elsewhere and relaying it. So no problems, but just like to track back the source. Thanks! Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah. Valeri_Lilov confirmed as Wiki brah sock. Fantasia west inconclusive. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my apologies. I know you have been overly hassled by some socks in the past. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggestbot

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources: ChessCafe.com; Paul Keres; Vasily Smyslov; Titan (moon); Rudolf Charousek; Chvrches
Cleanup: David Levy (chess player); Boris Akunin; Morgenthau Plan
Expand: 2012 British Grand Prix; LGBT rights in Russia; Frank Anderson (chess player)
Unencyclopaedic: Koror–Babeldaob Bridge; Alexander Khalifman; 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix

Wikify: Classified information; José Raúl Capablanca; Comins Mansfield
Orphan: Nadezhda Kouteva; Embedded hypervisor; Virtualization software licensing
Merge: Cyberwarfare; Moleben; Budapest Gambit
Stub: Ginny Blackmore; Vasilios Kotronias; Wilhelm Cohn; Gennadi Sosonko; Roshen; Lawaaris (1981 film)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little more proof?

Hey, I declined the speedy. I'm not entirely sure that this is a sock, but I will open a SPI to investigate whether or not User:Hector the Toad is a sock. I don't necessarily think that this was an entirely good faith nomination, but I'm just a little hesitant about deleting the AfD altogether without a little more proof. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is already opened under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah, and I'll be any amount of money you like it's him. It's a bad faith nomination for sure, I am familiar with this user as he's been harassing me for months, and specifically targetting articles I created for deletion. I don't even care if he's right, banned users should not be given the time of day or encouraged in any way. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is him, let me know and I'll update my remarks on the AfD. I'm really sorry that you've had to deal with harassment. I notice that he's already been warned about uncivil editing as far as the Chess AfD goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Grantham

FYI, since Hector is banned, you can instantly invalidate the AfD as a WP:Speedy keep, tagging it with {{db-banned}}. I would have done so but I saw you voted Delete. Personally, I'd prefer to see that happen and then renominated if truly problematic -- but I have no stake. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd more or less forgotten about that article, no big deal if they delete it. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged

Qat's up, template man? You feeling discouraged yet? I'm going to hound you off Wikipedia if its the last thing I do. I rarely have gotten this nasty with any of my would-be adversaries in my ten years here, not even that faggot User:Essjay that made the international news back on '07, but you seem to be a special sort of asshole. Obrigado, Dennys Fanatic (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]