User talk:Rebrane/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Rebrane, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela. 03:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stephan's Quintet image[edit]

The image is free if credited, as it says on the usage rights page. Nicholas 09:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:EnterpriseNX01.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. Rebrane 21:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind templated message, but I could really care less if it gets deleted. The Trek pages are nothing but havens to a bunch of whiners. Feel free to message this guy: Cburnett, since he's the supreme overlord of the Trek land on Wikipedia. If he wants to keep the image around, then he can deal with it. Cyberia23 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem[edit]

These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Self-induced abortion vfd.[edit]

Thank you for voting to keep the article on self-induced abortion. I promise to continue working to develop and improve this article. -- BD2412 talk 15:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)[edit]

OK, we're both civilized people, and I don't see any reason to take this to the conflict resolution page, but I will ask why the {navy-stub} tag was removed. Admittedly, the page is a bit larger than a stub, but so much more could be said about the aircraft carrier. TomStar81 23:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tomstar, you answered your own question. I agree entirely -- the page is larger than a stub but is still shorter than it should be. I think the {{attention}} or {{expand}} tags are preferable for this sort of article. But you're entitled to your opinion too, and if you think it's a stub or that the tag will help the article grow, then go ahead and re-add it. Eliot 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Jorge Pinzón[edit]

Thanks for recreating (properly) that article. If you can, could you give some reference somewhere to enable folks to verify it somewhat? Any recordings, discussion an independent website? I ask because finding verification from an Anglophone Google has been pretty tough sledding, and you might have access to these things. It would help the article greatly. Again, thanks for improving it. Geogre 04:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing eh? Well, I suppose VfD is possible. I'd hate to see that, though. Just some method for users to verify, learn more, and expand the stub would be a big help. Geogre 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Any honest effort at making a strong article is always fine by me. I speedy when I see a lack of effort, lack of energy, and, most particularly, when the material simply doesn't give readers a chance to learn more. A univocal "this is a fact" article, to me, is unencyclopedic, because it closes down contexts rather than opening them up, and if Clean Up can't help an article because the subject is inaccessible to the editors, we sort of have to have the article be pretty good right out of the gate. The more obscure the subject, the more vital that there be references, but no way would I consider it bad faith. It's never personal. Geogre 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking pages[edit]

I understand what you are trying to do here, but it causes several problems. Special:Shortpages is one of the most useful tools for detecting vandalism, and having deliberately blanked pages makes it harder to find those that have been maliciously blanked. Blanked pages will also appear on Special:Uncategorizedpages and Special:Deadendpages, making those tools less useful. For this reason, and others, not having blank pages has long been policy. See also Wikipedia:Blank pages. - SimonP 16:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior[edit]

FYI;

Added this to discussion page.

Rebrane has done some good work, but removed information about the police enquiry which captured the agents/spies. The effect is to present the matter as if the French owned up to poor judgement, rather than commited a crime and were caught by cops. The result is, intentionally or not, a generally French slant (e.g. changing 'murder' investigation to 'homocide', when New Zealand law has no crime of homocide). I note, at the risk of provoking a re-write on another page, there was discussion on the DGSE site, where 'murder' was settled on as a reasonable description. I do not think there is any need to go as far as referring to the bombing as terrorism (which New Zealanders routinely did long before Bush made the term popular). I do think the article needs some balancing, if not the restoration of the deleted material. Will leave this a while for any comments before stepping in.

S. Somasegar[edit]

Hello Rebrane,

I've made some changes to S. Somasegar including removing the tag you had put there. Please see my explanation on Talk:S. Somasegar. Bottom line - it seems to me that the strongest criteria for a VfD would be non-notability. I am on the fence on non-notability, a better article might establish notability - but based on the article's history you may feel more strongly on this than I do.

Thanks --Cje 08:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrane[edit]

I am extremely pissed at you! I WAS NOT THE SAME PERSON WHO WAS VOTING BEFORE! This is exactly what i didnt want wikipedia to become. Now i cant even vote. I want you to send me a respond ASAP

Comment is from anonymous user 200.73.82.173, who is mad because I pointed out that he is a sock puppet voting in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals. More evidence for the 'VfD is a cancer on Wikipedia' file. Eliot 22:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Yoder[edit]

Hello! Thank you for expanding the article. I see the information you used isn't from the film about him. Can you add a source for that info you added? - Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Alito[edit]

Hello, thanks for you note. I was actually just putting a comment on the Article Talk page. I agree with you that we should be discussing this. I look forward to working with you. Best, Johntex\talk 19:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Mozilla Trick[edit]

Thanks for sharing that great trick on your User page, that is definitely a real time saver. One click faster than the Wikipedia/Google search bar plug-in. Very nice. Best, Johntex\talk 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Libby image[edit]

Thank-you for replacing the Scooter Libby image at CIA leak grand jury investigation. --FloNight 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Connolly[edit]

Look mate, I don't know what you're trying to achieve by removing a succession box from the Chris Connolly page, but I am not going to stand for it. Spend your time providing meaningful information to the encyclopedia, not deleting it. Disgraceful >:( Rogerthat 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPMR[edit]

"revert vandalism"

Do you imagine this to be convincing, or even inventive? --TJive 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider changing an internal link to point to an unrelated article to be vandalism. Kind of like going around changing links to [[Adolf Hitler|George W. Bush]] would be vandalism. Eliot 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Pinochet's "presidency" is unrelated to military dictatorship? Interesting, that seems to be the opposite argument presented in the change's disfavor.
Sorry, it won't fly. But I will accept [[President of Chile|presidency]]. Somehow I think you would still object. --TJive 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that military dictatorship is the more precise term, and that insisting on the less-descriptive "President of Chile" link is POV pushing. The distinction is especially important considering the subject of the article. Eliot 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pinochet's presidency is a fact. That he was President of Chile is a fact. The closest thing to POV terminology in this discussion is "dictatorship" (which is a POV I do not disagree with). What is bizarre is that not only are you accusing me of "pushing" a "POV" that I do not hold (that Pinochet was not a dictator), but that you non-chalantly label this perfectly valid stylistic dispute "vandalism".
The distinction is especially important considering the subject of the article
Excuse me, are you attempting to contextualize the group based upon a harsher characterization of its opponent? Who is POV pushing, again? --TJive 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we've been misreading each other, if your edit was a stylistic one. These articles are constantly being vandalized, so I apologize for mistaking your edit for something it wasn't.
Let me try to explain what I meant. There is a difference between Pinochet and other Presidents of Chile. This difference is essentially captured by the term 'military dictatorship.' This difference is also fundamentally important to the topic of the article. This is what I meant by 'the distinction is important considering the subject of the article.' And trying to elide the distinction would be, I think, an inappropriate POV, but clearly nobody is attempting to do that. Sorry, again, for misreading you. Eliot 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there is a fundamental distinction in this regard as far as a "presidency" but the emphasis on the point seems to me only having the intention of relativizing the merits of the FPMR. Conversely, this is also often seen (keeping in relation to Chile) with reference to the "democratically elected" Salvador Allende, where not particularly relevant or conducive to the topic and facts at hand. It becomes not even so much bias in contextualizing but the author's personal sneer.
That is why I am among those who oppose the affixation of "dictator" as a general rule, because it brings in all sorts of POV, OR, and verifiability issues that editors are neither competent or objective enough to deal with (hence List of dictators). But as I said, this wasn't even my intention in my initial edit, where I added the link for "military dictatorship" to begin with (as opposed to the rather unencyclopedic and IMO borderline juvenile "dictatorial rule"). "Presidency" sidelines the question of NPOV entirely in favor of what I saw as the most grammatically/stylistically preferable option. I still intend to work towards this.
And of course the only reason this is an issue is because of the edit war, which wouldn't be a factor if it weren't for the anon who follows me (I likely would not have bothered with this page again otherwise). This edit summary sums up his raison d'être quite nicely: "Pinochet "presidency", Castro "regime", TJive "dumbass"" Push one POV, water down another, and pester me.
Thanks for taking a step back to look at the actual issue. --TJive 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you can get an idea what I'm dealing with by the latest talk comment from the [half]-anon in question. Here's an edit from today that provoked his ire. [1] Practically the same thing restated, he summarily reverted and even deleted the picture (it is offensive to the sensibilities of the PROC, after all). --TJive 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at your edit history and that of the anon. And here's an example of the sort of POV pushing that is very common on any article having to do with Chilean politics or history: [2] Eliot 13:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Does this case still require mediation? --Fasten 11:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Yoder[edit]

Thank you for the reference
Thank you for the reference

I've been visiting old articles on my creations list lately and I wanted to say a belated thank you for adding a reference to this one last September. :) Here have a flower. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yarmuth[edit]

I found your edit here amusing. You were totally right to make the change, but I'm guessing you aren't a Louisville native... for some reason the question "Where did you go to school?" here by default refers to high school. It's a bit of a running joke we have that local people consider high school (sports) affiliation to be more important than college affiliation, so it was totally a "Louisville" thing to do to mention his high school above all else. --W.marsh 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup?[edit]

Could you please start initiating a dialogue on the related talk pages when you put tags like {cleanup} on articles? Instantiations of {cleanup}, {npov} and various other tags tell readers to go to the related talk page for the discussion. If you, the contributor who placed the tag, doesn't initiate the dialogue, who is going to do so? We aren't mind readers. We shouldn't have to guess at why you think the tag applies. If you don't say WHY you think the tag pertains, how can the rest of us know when your concerns have been addressed, and the tag can be erased?

I put a note asking you to return to this page to finish the work of your tag placement.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rebrane/Archive1&oldid=1077604803"