Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I want to establish a dialogue, and this is definitely helped by getting a fresh set of eyes here.--] (]) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to establish a dialogue, and this is definitely helped by getting a fresh set of eyes here.--] (]) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:More disruption. --'']] ]'' 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::How is requesting mediation disruptive?--] (]) 04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Great job. You baited me into a response - I'm looking your contrib history since 2005 and it's pretty amazing. Your entire Misplaced Pages existence is drama, drama, and more drama. You either create drama with your uncivil comments or just join drama scenes in which you were not involved. ] is a microcosm of your entire WP existence. You have been heavily involved but have not contributed to the article in any meaningful way. You started a baseless afd (coincidentally the first afd you initiated in a few months and right after you berated my on my talk page for disagreeing with you) and tagged the articles with totally irrelevant tags. You stubbornly argue for the relevance of the tags in the face of an obvious consensus that they are nonsense. The only thing you added to the article is one OR statement.
:::I'm not interested in any of your predictable ] and ] responses. This is just a replay of the same issues you have went through with other editors countless of times.
:::I'm sorry, but I just don't have any confidence in any sort of resolution of this problem. Hopefully, you'll just move on and bother another editor. --'']] ]'' 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I do disagree on your opinion of my experience in Misplaced Pages since I joined with an account, but it shows why mediation might be useful. However, I must correct factually incorrect information, the latest article I submitted to AfD was a week before the AfD on Roof knocking - ]. I cannot change your opinion of me, but I will correct factually incorrect information. --] (]) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 06:32, 12 January 2009
This is a Misplaced Pages user 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer.
Brewcrewer! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had a few million to lose ;) When I flew back from Cancun they asked at customs whether I had more than $10K, my answer was "I wish" :) StarM03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Bury the hatchet?? I noticed you worked on the Video blogging article. There is a current dispute regarding a recent correction of the article timeline in which a new editor deleted the first recorded video blog and substituted The Journey by Adam Kontras. I'm not familiar enough with what sources would be considered acceptable here, but I am starting to smell a hoax. I would love some talking down. I have started a request for comment here: Video blogging. You can also track the AfD for Adam Kontras. Best stuff. --OliverTwisted14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry I couldn't reply earlier. Real life caught up with me. I don't even remember editing the article and video blogging surely isn't my expertise, but maybe I'll poke my head into the drama later. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't originally planning on nominating, so if you can find a good DYK fact out of it be my guest! It still needs some editing work that I'll do in the morning. Joshdboz (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to thank you and Joshdboz for this article - I never considered writing one myself, partly because I didn't have all the documentation at hand to do a proper job of it, but also, sadly, it never crossed my mind! You've done a nice job of this. I'm Charlie Winters's daughter. If there's some way I can help, let me know. Corgi (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you were active in making the earlier edits to Nariman house. Anyway, someone has very kindly placed a picture of the building on WP just after the attacks: Just thought you might want to know. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the deletion pages for two detainees at GITMO. Check this out: . Each civil habeus case has its own page, all substantially similar, all with the same formatics. I would suggest that each gets merged with their subjects, who also has his own page (in many cases failing notability), as do their lawyers (why they are notable, I have no idea).Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I know, this GITMO problem is an longstanding problem here at Misplaced Pages. It's basically two editors, User:Geo Swan and User:Sherurcij who if it were up to them, would write a separate article on each bathroom on GITMO. They're very anti-GITMO and I guess they feel they will somehow further their cause by writing articles on anything related to GITMO. I've fought some pitched battles at afd's, some successful and some not. But that is the life here at WP, you gotta deal with all kinds of people. We just have to convince the majority that their whole scheme is silly and POV. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to tell whether the preemption in Justice Black's opinion was based on statute or Constitution. The language of the opinion permits the reader to draw either inference. The ambiguity was intentional, as sometimes occurs in Supreme Court opinions when maintaining consensus may be an issue.
I cannot give you a citation for this, but I was there at the relevant time and my statement is based on undocumented oral history. You might want to look also at Bonito Boats which travels similar ground.
On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Winters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Re your question, I'm not sure why you are confused. If you read the many different articles cited, you will see that there are conflicting reports. Some say he was warned, some say his family was warned, some go further and suggest that not only was he was warned, but that he deliberately chose to ignore the warnings. Some suggest that he knew the risks posed to Hamas leaders in general and chose not to hide. Some say that there is no confirmation that he or his family were warned directly. All of this is in the refs cited. When there are mutliple conflicting reports about what happened, we should list them all and attribute them to the sources, so that the reader can decide for themselves what happened. When you delete the distinctions between the reports, you impose one POV on the article. So please stop doing that and let's try to work together to represent all the different reports on the subject as best we can. Thanks. Tiamut14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken regarding the uniaminity of opinion in the RS's. Further, per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, when there is more than one POV on an issue, we should represent them all and attribute them to their speakers. It may seem awkward presently, but that is only because this is breaking news and as developments continue, the information will become less contradictory (at least one hopes) with time. This discussion should continue however, at the talk page. We can go through the refs cited one by one and determine exactly how to represent the different accounts. Tiamut15:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I think this is better discussed at the talk page for the article. Right now, I am going through the refs cited one by one. Note that the Jerusalem Post cite listed in footnote #2 says nothing about any warnings at all, so that's one down. As I go through them, I will add the exact quotes about the subject in footnotes so that the reader can review the information for themselves. There is definitely much more contradiction in the reports than you seem to think. I urge you to read the articles yourself. Tiamut15:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to touch bases on the GC article. It has to be the most frustrating article ever. I wanted to thank you for your hard work on it and let you know that there is at least one person out there who appreciates it, lol. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Surname template
Thanks for the message. The reason I've been putting in surname templates is that the surname/hndis templates also identify the page as disambiguation - that is, the page ends up with the hidden "All disambiguation pages" category. I've written some orphan-identifying scripts, which excludes disambig pages, but some of these surname pages were showing up in my orphan lists. So I made of list of surname pages, and have been looking at each one, and if one has very little text but does have a list of names, I put the surname or hndis template on it. I could also accomplish my goal with the generic disambig template. Would that work better? --JaGa22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Surname pages are quasi-dab pages. Although they walk, talk, and quack like dab pages, they aren't real dab pages. All the entries are different terms; they only share a last name. Thus, adding {{dab}} to surname pages would run into a lot of protests. It you would like to add the surname templates to the articles, it's fine, but please add them as {{surname|nocat}} when the page is already categorized. Thanks,--brewcrewer(yada, yada)23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Even a page like Furtado? That looks very DAB to me - sharing a common name is what DABs are all about, and the article has next to no content besides the list of names. --JaGa23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I did a little looking on the Anthroponymy project and saw you're right - probably articles with no content besides the list should be a DAB page instead of a surname page, but they're labeled as such, and I'm not going to bother changing them. --JaGa23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject, I do not believe that pages like Furtado are dab pages. (That is why, by the by, I reverted JaGa's edit to Walker (surname).) An example of a hndis page is James Walker, where the people share more than just one name. Sharing just a given name or just a surname does not a dab page make, although the format can look very similar. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey - I was wondering if you ever found an answer to your question here? I'm having the same problem, and have all kinds of monobook foo and enabling/distabling Twinkle in gadgets, but can't find an answer of how to prevent things from getting on my watchlist. Thanks so much. FlyingToaster17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus for it's non-inclusion. If anything to the contrary. Therefore, I don't have to go there to argue for it's inclusion. You have to go there and argue for the removal of something that is sourced and important and corrects a blatant WP:POV. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm already there. Would you care to join me? (There you will see that I'm not trying to "remove" anything).VRtalk04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's unfair to revert and then initiate a discussion, as if I have to argue to change the status quo. The addition of the entire basis of the conflict, which is clearly supported by reliable sources, is something that is most integral to a lede. Please revert and then argue for it's removal. I'll be glad to entertain your arguments for it's removal. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have not removed it, rather I moved it down to the second paragraph where both Israel's and Hamas' reasons are being discussed. The first paragraph is for basic info like time, location, parties etc. Do you think the coverage of Israel's reasons in the second paragraph is unfair?VRtalk05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph, the background, is also a POV violation. The paragraph decides to go back in time until the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, giving the impression that everything started from the blockade. How about going back a little further and explain why Israel decided to create the blockade?
In any case, the background and how far back to go within the background is another POV problem that has to be taken up when the first POV problem is resolved. The first POV problem is the fact that the precipitating action is missing from the opening of the lede. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The widespread sources quote blockade of Gaza, and rocket fire of Hamas as the two reasons. We can keep going further back, however, after December 19, these were the two reasons mentioned.
The opening of the lead is there to give basic information and not start blaming. Please note that the first paragraph doesn't blame Israel for the blockade either.VRtalk05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the mention of Israeli airstrikes from the first paragraph. I thought that was fair.VRtalk05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, the second paragraph needs work. It's incorrect to say that the rockets were in response to the blockade when the rockets were being fired long before the blockade took place in June of 2007. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, since the truce ended (but before 27) Hamas fired rockets into Israel, and Israel killed several Palestinians.VRtalk06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally: 2001=bad idea. So many encounters have happened between Hamas and Israel, we couldn't possibly cover them in the lead while keeping it brief. Let's just give background info in the lead, not the history of Israeli-Hamas conflict.VRtalk06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas might say that they will stop if Israel lifts the blockade, but they don't claim that the only reason for the rockets is the blockade? How can they?
The Hamas-Israel conflict is far greater and complex then the rockets fired from Gaza. In any case, just saying that the issue arose after the truce ended is misleading. Readers will think that the rockets from Hamas started only then, while that's not the case. Besides for being misleading, it's just poorly written. We can't tell a reader that there was a truce without telling the reader what the truce was all about.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC
Hamas blamed Israel, whether rightly or wrongly, for not respecting the truce condition of not blockading (whether this was a condition can also be debated, but that's not the point).
Ofcourse violence didn't start then, because we have linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the lead as well. Certainly, I don't think we can cover the entire history of Hamas-Israel violence in the lead.
The "cross border fighting" part is just wrong. There was no cross border fighting going on in between the end of the truce and the beginning of the Israeli airstrikes. Only Hamas was doing the fighting, by firing rockets. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas was indeed doing the fighting, but Israel also made airstrikes, and there was clash between Hamas militants and Israeli soldiers.VRtalk06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your version says that there was cross border fighting prior to the 27th. However, there were over a hundred rockets fired from Hamas and one shooting from the Israeli side. I wouldn't describe that as "cross border fighting". Indeed, nor do reliable sources describe that time frame in that fashion. See alsoWP:SYNTH. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)07:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my edits are entirely within the bounds of wiki policy. The words "corss-border fighting" was straight out of a reliable source: Reuters.VRtalk01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a wide ranging consensus conversation around the lede. Feel free to express your views there and perhaps your convince other. In the meantime, I am reverting your non-discussed edits to the rough consensus version, as modified. If you do not attempt to establish consensus by productive dialog, as many editors are trying to do, you will be reverted. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The lede at that talk page doesn't resemble the current lede. In addition, the fact that it's "wide-ranging" is exactly the problem. It's basically a hodge-podge of different issues in which no three editors are discussing the same thing. Although I might admire your intentions to pigeon-hole editors to certain talk pages before making certain edits, you can't revert other editors on this basis. You must provide a substantive reason for reverting another editor. Another thing: I might be more willing to go along with this "lede talk page" scheme if you'd be consistent with your reverts of of lede edits. Apparently, you are only reverting the edits which you don't agree with. Btw, when you respond (if you do) please don't end your message to me with "thanks". It makes me very nervous. What are you thanking me for? --brewcrewer(yada, yada)06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you done a through study of my lede edits? Almost all of them have been grammar rewrites or rephrasing to eliminate redundancies (at one point "december" and "israeli" appeared 3 times in two sentences!). And I haven't reverted anything except blatant vandalism or pov pushing. In fact, I have added things, and as it stands, now, was 75% written by me and 25% sourced by me, including the bits you have obviously like as you haven't reverted (not that I want to give you any ideas). I am sorry, but you must have confused me with someone else... That said, I think it would be more constructive if you choose to debate, as you would learn, for example, that the version at the begining is outdated, because it has been superseded by discussion and editing. Had you read the debate you would have realized this. Of course, do as you feel, but what does that say about your respect for your fellow editors? No thanks, as per request, althought I am curious, why does it make you nervous? It is the first time I have heard that one... --Cerejota (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, the second paragraph is horribly written and very misleading. I've explained why in the above thread. The "thanks" makes me nervous because it doesn't make sense. Why should your be thanking me? --brewcrewer(yada, yada)07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am thanking you for reading me! for taking the time... I think I did some changes that should address the matter. I hear your point and even sympathize with it, but I think the lede should be a summary, not a long explanation. In the first line there is a link to the main conflict page, the background section is precisely for this. For reasons of length I have opposed talking int he lede about background, but there seems to be a growing consensus around some mention. Right now I am doing a sourcing and wiki link fix, and the lede is becomign more stable... I hope we can move beyond it soon.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not for adding to the lede. My version for the second paragraph, the "background paragraph", is not longer then the current version. The current version is badly written and misleading. The paragraph starts off with a "truce" which we know nothing about and just begs a whole bunch of questions which are not answered until a later section. What truce? Why truce? When truce? Truce over what? But that in of itself would not bother me if not for the fact that it's misleading and grossly in favor of the Palestinian POV. The paragraph implies that the rockets only began after the truce ended. That's not true. They were firing rockets since 2001 and Israel had plans of initiating this action long before the truce ended (all sourced, of course). In addition, unlike the paragraph's implications, there was nothing called "cross-border fighting" after the truce ended and before Dec 27 airstrikes began. Hamas fired over a 100 rockets within that span while Israel shot once at Hamas members Israel claims was about to fire a rocket. No reliable source refers to these intermittent days as "cross-border fighting". --brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, check the changes and the invisible comment I put in, and give me input (I think wording is ok tho on the part on "cross-border figthing", while Hamas did fire a bunch of rockets, it didn't kill anyone, while the israeli action did, so lets say one Hamas member dead + 100 inefective rockets = crossborder fighting... why? because we should use an encyclopedic voice. The details are either on the background or in other articles) I am all for balance!--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Question begging problems are not resolved with hidden comments. They're called "hidden comments" for a reason, because readers don't see them. I don't agree with you in regard to the "cross-border fighting" term. This is a general problem with people's way of approaching this conflict. People think everything should be even. 100 infective rockets = one dead Hamas member. It just doesn't work like that. If one side is shooting over a 100 rockets and one side kills one of the "launchers", they are not "fighting". Besides, no reliable source refers to this "cross-border fighting", so we can't, per WP:SYNTH make it up. But the most important problem has yet to begin being resolved. The whole paragraph is misleading. It makes it seem like the rockets only began after the truce ended and it's just plain false. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph clearly says "Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities." It is unambigously saying that the rationale for the attacks is the "increased rocket fire". Please, take a step back and re-read: this has not been a one-side conversation, and great care has been taken to address both sides. I do understand your concerns, and they are legitimate, but I feel, unless you explain to me otherwise, that they are currently addressed in the way they should be addressed by the lede.--Cerejota (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it isn't WP:SYNTH: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. The sources (taken as a whole: remember the lede is a summary of the article, so what is sourced in the article verifies the lede) unequivocally said that there was "cross-border fighting" before Operation Cast Lead but after the end of the ceasefire. For example, Tipping Point - After years of rocket attacks, Israel finally says, ‘Enough!’ - The Baltimore Jewish Times, a respected regional newspaper of immaculate Zionist credentials says: "Dec. 19, 2008 — Attempts to renew the ceasefire fail. A surge of cross-border fighting begins." This is a direct quote. I am sorry, but unless you do not consider the Baltimore Jewish Times a reliable source - which I would vigorously argue against, I think you are mistaken in your view of this being WP:SYNTH.--Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...if you feel I have done 3RR. I haven't. Adding material is not a reversion, fixing grammar is not RR, doing non-controversial edits and reverts is not 3RR. Sorry, but you are wrong, and you know it. Check the diffs. And please be useful instead of disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I accept the apology... is this the reason you reverted in my talk? If so, I will revert it myself again. No need to have this out in the open. Thank you for apologizing. We all should do it more, and I know how hard it is to do. ;) --Cerejota (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brewcrewer. Just wanted to say I'm sorry if you were offended in our latest discussion. That's the price we pay for editing such nerve-touching pages anyway :). Have fun. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
On January 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nizar Rayan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey Mitch. When I notice a "redlinked editor" making a good edit, I almost always add the welcome template to their article, hoping to encourage them to continue editing. But rarely do any of them continue editing and it's even more rare to get a response. So it's pretty cool to get a response from you. As for editing tools, I'm not that advanced with all the "shtick". I use the edit toolbar and Twinkle, but I only got them after at-least 15k edits. I also made my first edit long after you did (sometime in august of 07), so we're on extremely different trajectories. I don't really stick to one issue; I kinda wonder here and there. As of now, I'm working at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The article is really slanted as an anti-Israeli POV. I don't know if the subject interests you, but I would not recommend it. It's not for newbies or the faint-hearted. It's full of unfriendly editors only interested in advancing their agenda. I would recommend something more lighter like something sports-related. Ultimately, I think you should just edit in area which you like and are familiar with. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Roof knocking
I have nominated Roof knocking, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roof knocking. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I am disappointed at your recent attitude. You know that there is nothing against policy in including "Gaza massacre" (its sourced, presented neutrally etc - it is POV, but so is "Operation Cast Lead" which it balances to eliminate bias), you know the article is about the events that started with Operation Cast Lead (regardless of title). You know there is not a snowball chance in hell you can get this article to eliminate prominent mention of the Palestinian perspective no matter how hard you protest and edit war/edit ninja (if by neutrality you mean that only the Israeli perspective should be allowed, or the Palestinian perspective as presented by the Israeli perspective, then perhaps). There is no need to get pointy, and doing this is just not what Misplaced Pages is about. I ask you, I beg you, to stop. There are actual examples of non-neutrality and bias in the article. The lede isn't it: lets move on. --Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"You're disappointed at recent attitude"? Being condescending and accusing me of being pointy because I disagree with your POV is not exactly the most WP:CIVIL way of interacting. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't come to my talk page to complain or attack me. If you would like to discuss something substantive, by my guest. If not, please, I'm trying to build a neutral encyclopedia.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see this:. I am sure you are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia, and so I am, but we do this by building consensus: just because people do not share your views on neutrality, does that make them the personification of evil - it just makes them people who disagree with you. And I am sorry you misunderstand my concerns as attacks they certainly aren't from my view, and certainly not my intention.--Cerejota (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth, especially if it involves on allegation of being uncivil and especially if it lacks any basis. Nobody has received more abuse at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict then I. I've been called a "dummy" and I've been told my arguments are "bullshit". Yet, I still stand here with my head high having not resorted to any name calling or argument rephrasing. This makes your "personification of evil" point most perplexing. But please, I'm not interested in drama. No attacks and no half-baked apologies. Let's just stick to content. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, when I have seen abuse or POV pushing even from people that have agreed with me on a given discussion, I have raised it, but I disagree you have been in particularly a target, people simply disagree with you. If you are offended by a given user for calling you a "dummy", you should go to WP:DRAMA instead of threatening ArbCom: it just is not a good way of handling it. However, do you feel - other than the unfortunate mis-communication here - that *I* have been uncivil? And my apology is not half-backed, it is sincere, I am sorry it didn't come across as such. I do not want drama either, that is why I approach you directly. --Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting going to Arbcom because of the insults hurled at my direction. I'm suggesting going to arbcom because a consensus cannot be reached. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)09:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't rule on content, only on behavior, that is why I assumed you referred to the behavior. Ask them, they will tell you. And consensus has been reached, just not the one you agree with. Of course, Consensus can change. --Cerejota (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
On the count of consensus, I will let the article itself speak: there are no 3RR violations yet the content is relatively stable, which is the definition of consensus. However, consensus being an ambiguous concept, I could live with being wrong.
I hope this clears up your confusion, although I will leave the door open for you to present me with evidence (or even an argument) that I am misreading ArbCom.--Cerejota (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. See the talk page. There is a natural delay between placing the tags and writing the talk page thread. You should be more patient before launching accusations that border on the personal. This is not the first time we have been through this, and I feel I have done the best I can to deal with your attitude issues: we can both disagree and treat each other with trust and in a productive fashion. It is really bothersome to have to deal with repeated messages that launch accusations without any basis. --Cerejota (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As an example, see the apology you gave to me for the 3RR and the one for wikistalking from Tundra. You see what I mean? Its not positive bro, we can disagree, even strongly, but there is no need to do this.--Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On using "wrong"
Could you please, in the interest of civility, instead of saying "wrong" and not explain anything, always follow it with an explanation as to why it is wrong? I have seen you do this many times, and done it to me (even when I am patently factually right), and quite frankly it feels very unproductive: we are not here to emit shallow opinions and vote, we are here to discuss, and if your only response is "wrong" there is nothing to discuss: this is uncivil, as it closes the door for dialogue. Not everyone is as tolerant as I am, and understandably so.--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I think the hebrew for "roof knocking" is l'defawq al h'gag. I don't know how accurate it is, as my hebrew is very basic. Also, I do not know if that phrase itself(as I have written it in hebrew) is notable. I am sure that "roof knocking" is notable, but not necessarily my attempted translation. However, it might be a starting point to go off of. Hopefully, we can get someone who is a better hebrew speaker to help out.
Nice to meet you too. Thanks for your help with the article and dealing with the tag spamming. I don't know about the Hebrew translation. But what's important, is that since in recent times this type of military tactic has been undertaken by the IDF, the tactic is more notable in Israel then in other countries. Therefore there probably are more hebrew language news sources that discuss this tactic. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Civlity
I disagree I am being uncivil. However, I do ask you to back off and only post in my talk page over content, on when you are personally offended by me (for which I will always apologize, as it is not my intention to be offensive or engage in way otherwise related to editing). If you feel my behavior is in anyway unproductive, and needs addressing by the community, we have a dispute resolution process: feel free to use it, as we all have in the past. Again I ask you, as I have many times before, to not confuse strong disagreement with personal animosity. Thank you. --Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Great job. You baited me into a response - I'm looking your contrib history since 2005 and it's pretty amazing. Your entire Misplaced Pages existence is drama, drama, and more drama. You either create drama with your uncivil comments or just join drama scenes in which you were not involved. Roof knocking is a microcosm of your entire WP existence. You have been heavily involved but have not contributed to the article in any meaningful way. You started a baseless afd (coincidentally the first afd you initiated in a few months and right after you berated my on my talk page for disagreeing with you) and tagged the articles with totally irrelevant tags. You stubbornly argue for the relevance of the tags in the face of an obvious consensus that they are nonsense. The only thing you added to the article is one OR statement.
I'm not interested in any of your predictable WP:AGF and WP:CHILL responses. This is just a replay of the same issues you have went through with other editors countless of times.
I'm sorry, but I just don't have any confidence in any sort of resolution of this problem. Hopefully, you'll just move on and bother another editor. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I do disagree on your opinion of my experience in Misplaced Pages since I joined with an account, but it shows why mediation might be useful. However, I must correct factually incorrect information, the latest article I submitted to AfD was a week before the AfD on Roof knocking - . I cannot change your opinion of me, but I will correct factually incorrect information. --Cerejota (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
