User talk:Derex

Thanks.--Tbeatty 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you really are a funny little fellow

your comments on the Deir Yassin battle especially. There's an article which has sources depicting the question whether a massacare even took place. Please stick to a referral to the page in question. Your comments over the peaceful village was indeed inspiring. But not encyclopedic. Have a nice day my friend. Amoruso 08:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an exact quote from Uri Davis, not my comment. Derex 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who said it... you must grasp the issue of balances and not pushing one version over another. The article in question is articulate and complicated enough for you not to choose one random source and depict it as fact telling an incident. And your negative attitude is uncalled for, I don't know where your general animosity and belligerent approach comes from. It's a shame. Amoruso 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do. A quote from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal from a notable author is supposed to have more standing here at Wikipedia than pseudonymous Wikipedia editor Amoruso's no doubt completely expert and scrupulously neutral opinion.

It seems your idea of grasping balances is to delete material that doesn't correspond to your idea of the Stern Gang as choirboys. Now, I have been quite clear that my "negative" attitude is in response to your deletion of well-sourced material. Jmabel has made the same observation on a different article. And, unlike me, Jmabel is a paragon of restraint and civility. I just prefer to call bullshit where I see it. I'm hardly pushing one version over another, you had not even _mentioned_ the Deir Yassin massacre. I at least got something in place about this rather prominent and important event. It's not the final word. But, it has the advantage of having not a drip of my personal POV in it, since I have none, and knew nothing about the event anyway. 90% of what I entered is exact quotes from scholarly sources, and the remainder is close paraphrases.

As to attitude, you are the one running around _commanding_ other users what to do. For example, ordering me to revert to your version yesterday, lest you report me for a bogus 3RR violation. The irony being that I then would actually have been in violation, for which you no doubt would have reported me. You game the 3RR. You mass spam sympathetic authors. You delete well-cited material on flimsy pretexts. You act like you own the article. And you wonder why you've pissed me off. One clue is that I don't actually care about the article. So you've managed to piss off someone who doesn't even give a shit. That takes some effort, some attitude, and some arrogance. Strong work, my friend. Derex 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you got pissed off, that wasn't my intention. I do think that was a WP:3RR violation and so reported it to you - that got you all mad, I don't know why. Anyway, Jmabel's observation is not related - the issue in question is over a certain wording of an article being written as fact where in fact it isn't. I said that to him as well. You're getting all worked up over nothing really. As for the Deir Yassin massacre, you're wrong - it is mentioned in the article. Btw, I didn't write the article and I don't see why you're blaming me. As for the Deir Yasseen , it is in fact mentioned, but if you're not familiar with issues of Lehi, please don't find a random source and quote it. Deir Yassen is an incident highly disputed and controversial - in fact, many claim it's not a massacre, and the title of the article went through many discussions and used to be "battle of Deir Yasseen" - the current title is not an endorsement of it being a massacre but simply a more common name. You understand that it won't be fair to get any source, peer reviewed whatever, over any other source where the different opinions on the issue were covered very extensively in the article, correct ? I do wish you a happy day and no hard feelings . Lehi is a subject that I indulged quite deeply and so I do not wish inaccuracies on the article, that is all. Amoruso 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted. I will note however that when you start "warning" people on 3RR you better be right, and you emphatically weren't. Perhaps you should go scrutinize the criteria again. I assure you I know the rules quite well, and I have not been blocked in 3 years.

As to the "massacre", well it wasn't mentioned in the main space in the article for such mentionings. As for "random source", it wasn't a random source. I did a search on JSTOR, a very large database of scholarly journals. That's what came up. I didn't call it a massacre, both the source and wikipedia call it a massacre. What I blame you for, and here I'm lumping you with Isarig, is removing cited material. I can see editing the context and preserving the cite. But, what's been happening is that everything is not exactly perfect, the whole thing gets ripped out. It's not right, and it's not the way to write a better encyclopedia. And that's my only interest in the article. Derex 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shoe, meet other foot

Tbeatty moved the below to here, from his talk page. I wonder why.

because if your going to troll, I'd prefer you do it on your own page

if this was a troll, then, my god, you're an easy mark. but, it wasn't.

Then ---

"They [Army Times] quote Vets for Truth and the fact that they devoted an entire article on them meets the notability criteria." -Tbeatty

Now ---

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Declaration_of_peace

"Delete NN, not encyclopedic." -Tbeatty

UPI Washington Post 2420 more media cites

- best regards

Derex 10:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the difference is that one is an POV fork article and the other is a single quote in a larger article. I have nothing against the Declaration of Peace group being quoted or mentioned in larger article in the Iraq war. But I suppose you see nothing ironic about your Keep for this whole article and your Delete for a vets for truth single quote. And the hubris to try to point it out. --Tbeatty 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see tiny wee bit of difference between acknowledging 2420 media cites, including essentially every major newspaper in the country. And writing an extended analysis of a quote off a webpage of a group apparently so unnotable that no one has bothered to write an article about them. Your assertion for notability of both the quote and the group being 1 article in the Army Times that mentioned it.

Further, it's not that I objected to a one-sentence mention (as you know), but the section about one use one time being 5 times as long as the main use, which I documented being used hundreds of times on the news, just that week. Also, as you can plainly see, I was unwilling to commit to preserving DOP despite what then seemed to be middlish coverage in the major media. Lastly, an article being POV is no excuse to delete it (not that I see that for DOP). It's a reason to re-write it.

At any rate, it is entirely consistent to view, as I do, 2420 media citations as notable and 1 mention in a minor outlet as not. On the other hand, it is not reasonable to argue, as you do, that the 1 minor outlet mention is notable and the 2420 including most major newspapers are not.

Obviously you have not been able to comprehend what I have argued to keep or delete. DOP deserves mention in Iraq war protests one it completes and can be judged on it's impact. Right now, it's wikinews at best. It certainly does not deserve it's own article. And I don't care, as you should have seen, how long or how many sentences the swiftboat definition has. As long as it's mention is complete. You will notice that I did not simply create another Swiftboating article. You also seem to be unaware swiftboating has it's own article space that has about 10x more info on the liberal version than the conservative one. But that is also irrelvant as long as the coverage is complete. --Tbeatty 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lauren B. Weiner was created when I just started in WP. It was a WP:POINT violation in response to Gamaliel's creation of Lori Klausutis and his insistence of white washing the DSCC scandal at the same time trying to keep hype Klausutis in the Scarborough article. His response to having the Klausutis crap removed from Scarborough was to fork off a Klausutis bio ( a NN person ). I did the same with Weiner. It was a mistake. You could go and try to delete the Klausutis article as she is non-notable as well. I also voted Delete on the Weiner article. --Tbeatty 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did vote delete. And that was quite tricksy because you had just cut and paste that exact material to another article. You could tell it was going to lose, so you tried to end-run the system. But, you didn't get away with it in the end. At any rate, I mentioned it with humor, and you apparently admit that you were wrong. So, leave it at that. Derex 23:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it to save the material which was culled and pared down by consensus. I certainly did not end run the system and I participated in the culling and the final article. And if you agree with me on Klausutis, why not put it up for deletion. There are already a couple of sentences in Scarborough on her. It's just not the 6 paragraph section that was there before.--Tbeatty 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't care about Klausutis. There are plenty of things here that I do care about, and I'd rather spend my time on those. But, if you put it up for a vote and let me know, I'll vote delete. That's because I prefer to go barefoot, no need for cramping shoes at all. Derex 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, your nasty little comments elsewhere about RF were ridiculous. I, on the other hand, am more than happy to hand some rope to an idiot. If only more knuckledraggers would grab hold of it ... Derex 01:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being barefooted knuckledragger bait is no way to go through life. :) --Tbeatty 00:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. Beats grading papers. And, it's a little cathartic, since I can't actually beat one about the face and neck with a wiffle-ball bat (or anything sterner). Derex 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was nothing nasty about it at all. Normally RF is a predictable, responsible and reasonable editor. And there are other times where she seems to inject herself into disputes with comments that appear to be to antagonize other editors. I've experienced it as well as seen it done to other editors. I've also seen the responses to her trolling end up on RfC's and ArbCom cases as personal attacks. I just warned another editor that it may happen to him. --Tbeatty 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was one thing very nasty - you intentionally referred to me as 'it'... and that was no accident.

And of course, I did not antagonize anyone, I just advised TDC that his stalking accusation rang hollow, and his response escalated into more and more hostility. If I engage in conversation with another user and they themselves engage in a personal attack or other abusive behavior, that is certainly not my fault nor my responsibility, as I assume everyone is able to conduct themselves as an adult. Sometimes, as you know, that's not a valid assumption. I'm fully comfortable it's not 'trolling', although in another little nasty act you're trying to label me. In any case, cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking about trolls when I wrote that and didn't think to genderize them. It was not an intentional slight to you in any way. I apologized after rereading it and corrected it. --Tbeatty 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original tabs option

Hi Derex. This is a quick message to let you know that the caction tool option variable "keepOriginalTabs" no longer works, due to a bug in a new version of the script. The presence of the old option variable in your monobook.js will not cause any errors, however if you wish to continue having the original tabs option, please change the variable in your monobook.js from keepOriginalTabs to ctOriginalTabs. Many thanks. If you find any new bugs in the script, please let me know! haz (talk) e 11:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]