User talk:Graham Wellington

Inetpup, stop

Inetpup, if you continue to vandalize my user page, I'll have no choice but to report you. Graham Wellington 19:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't vandalism. You didn't interpret my statement correctly. I was trying to point out that your contribution history is dubious and suspect. Your account usage pattern is unusual and sporadic. Further your actions on the PHX article are pretty sophisticated and indicate a user level higher than your usage would indicate. Perhaps this could imply that you have secondary accounts. Of course, I have no evidence of this or Sock puppetry so I can't make that accusation yet. But I reserve the right to, if I find any evidence of it. Thank you for your attention. --Inetpup 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Inetpup, please refrain from biting the newcomers. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean you need to impugn his editing record. If you want to imply he's a sockpuppet or a poor user, you need to be able to back it up. Lots of editors are sporadic. Lots of editors read a lot of policy and make good edits without a long history. --Matt 07:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Without more evidence, this seems pretty close to bullying to me. --Matt 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Like many other editors, I'm busy outside of Wikipedia. Whenever a window of free time pops up I do my best to contribute. You muddied up an encyclopedic airport article with tabloid journalism and were caught. Move on and grow up. Graham Wellington 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • False. It wasn't tabloid journalism. And no, I wasn't caught! Now whose acting like a bully? Seems like you! According to my judgment, that piece wasn't recentism (as Matty calls it), nor tabloidism; it belongs in the article in the long term, along with any other death incidents that look place at the airport (or enroute to/from it). Now you too, please act like an adult. Thank you for your attention. --Inetpup 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Airplane crashes belong in airport articles. Terrorist attacks belong in airport articles. The random death of one individual does not. Stop bullying me in my own discussion space. Graham Wellington 23:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Final question: May I ask why you blanked your user talk page previously? --Inetpup 00:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I asked you to leave. Vandalize my page one more time and I'll report you. Graham Wellington 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with forgetting to log-in while editing. We generally encourage anyone to edit. It still might be worthwhile for you to read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Forbidden_uses_of_sock_puppets just as an FYI. It's mostly obvious things like "Well I think this, and that IP agrees with me, so 2-1, you lose." Sorry for not just asking you to begin with. Take care.--chaser - t 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with Graham. I don't think this incident should be on the page - at all. Tanthalas39 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Francis

Where did you source this information that Francis is Jewish? The three sources in the article lead do not mention this (and IMDB is never a reliable source anyway). I have removed that possibly false information. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have a tendency to do the same with other articles about people that are potrayed negatively, like this and this. I'm sure that you can find a better way to "contribute" to Wikipedia. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I noticed that User talk:68.118.255.104 "coincidentally" edited the Joe Francis article five minutes later with the same edit and has a tendency of making anti-semitic edits, like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I'm saying..... --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I never edited the five articles you mentioned above( [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] )from the IP address User talk:68.118.255.104. If you continue to vandalize my user page with baseless accusations I'll have no choice but to report you to an Admin. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

jewish faith

Please stop adding unsourced material.

Additionally, I don't think you understand the difference between faith, religion and ethnicity. There are people that are ethnicaly jewish but they have secular religious views. It is, therefore, wrong to describe them of "the jewish faith." They don't consider themselves to be of the "jewish faith," and nor does anyone else. For the same reason, it's wrong to describe them as "religious jews." They are secular jews not religous jews.

Moreover, I can't seem to understand why you find it important to go around labeling people as jews. Do you by any chance have some sort of agenda?

All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are now in violation of our WP:3RR policy. I'm going to refrain from a block at this time, as the article was protected, but consider yourself on notice that your actions are in violation of our policies and the community spirit of consensus that is supposed to guide us. Please don't do this again. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

feedback request

I requested feedback regarding my reverting your edits here:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#WP:STALK. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Jeffrey Epstein has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and do not make accusations against other editors in the summaries. Thank you. Your edit summary, which stated "brewcrewer, i'll go straight to admin if you vandalize again." is inappropriate. The removal of the section in question was done by an anonymous IP. Unless you have specific conclusive evidence that it was done by User:Brewcrewer, then please refrain from making unfounded accusations. In addition, please acquaint yourself with WP:VANDAL to familiar yourself with what constitutes vandalism. This policy states Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Thank you Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wildhartlivie. Graham Wellington: If you think that the IP address that removed the content was my sockpuppet then bring it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. But please don't accuse me in your edit summaries. Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, almost two-days ago I reverted your adding of a link to the USS Liberty incident in the "see also" section of the King David Hotel bombing page . You have provided no rationale for the insertion of what is, IMHO, conspicuously irrelevant. Would you please provide one? Your previous content disputes and ensuing interactions with well-intentioned users indicate you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Describing good-faith comments as vandalism and those who deposit them on your talk page as vandals, for example, is highly inappropriate. Please review WP:Vandalism, which expounds on this disruptive activity. I suggest you also review WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE), WP:NOT, WP:USERPAGE, and WP:Fringe. I realise that must seem like a veritable alphabet soup but I am genuinely concerned about some of your contributions, and most especially the language you have employed on talk pages and in edit summaries which could cause others to forego the assumption of good faith.

To further elaborate, for example, your frequent self-identification as Jewish appears almost like a defensive mechanism as it is invariably preceded by remarks like "Judaism teaches us to knock down false "([11]),"You know full well I edit the pages of good Jews and criminal Jews alike..." (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 10#WP:STALK), and edit summaries that contain highly provocative rhetoric: "zionist warmongers pressured depaul university to fire finkelstein. i sadly have to make this edit because it is fact" ([12]). Of course those are merely excepts, but Wikipedia has contended with many disruptive, tendentious users who have employed similar language that can, at a minimum, be justifiably described as inflammatory. I urge you to assess the substance of your comments (among others) and how they could be - and have evidently been - perceived. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that represents established consensus, interpretation, and mainstream, not a platform for the propagation of minority views or personal agendas. Also, would you please refrain from identifying individuals as being Jewish (or of any other ethnicity) in the lede without explicit context for its inclusion (main body is perfectly acceptable providing there is attribution to reliable sources). As has been recommended to others, please review WP:MoS#Identity and WP:NAMES. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Graham, I repeat will you please refrain from using such language; it's liable, even when entirely innocent, to be construed as offensive by many (if not most). I'm not ordering you not to edit pages. As said in the above message, identifying a person's heritage is perfectly acceptable. But not in the lead (e.g Example (born 1976) is an [x]-American) as it is discouraged without an explicit context for its inclusion. Please review WP:NAMES and WP:MoS#Identity, pertinent and explanatory. Also, WP:BLP also has application here as you have edited a number of controversial articles. SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive language

If you're disconcerted by the behaviour of other users, convey your concerns by leaving a message on their talk page. Although it's lamentable that "bullshit" was used by Brewcrewer in that edit summary, it would be a gross overreaction to describe the word as "disgusting". Wikipedia is not censored and I personally believe that, at worst, it was merely impolite. The user's decision to remove the link was valid as it was unquestionably highly inappropriate. Wikipedia:External links discusses the applicability of ELs in detail. SoLando (Talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The link is highly inappropriate; it essentially depicts your archetypal conspiracy theory that could have no legitimate, balanced application in that article. There is no relevance to the subject and it certainly doesn't enhance the article Douglas Rushkoff. I urge you to review WP:EL.SoLando (Talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)