User talk:Bertrc

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

red Hulk.
Re: Well, I've removed it. This will be the only time I do this for you. Wikipedia isn't about 'thinking of the children' and other imbecilic crap that the far right christian mindset demands of the rest of the world, though they're all flaming hypocrites about it. Read WP:CENSORED. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded - --Bertrc (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen
First off, I want to say that I understand your viewpoints and I want to remind you that I was open to including it in the plot summary, but it seemed to raise too many problems putting it in. However, i am concerned that you are pressing your viewpoint too much, and that's the real problem. I mean, look at your edit history and see how many of your edits are about this one little thing. I have no problem if there's consensus for a workable solution, but right now there isn't but you're trying to plough through regardless. As I said before, just take a step back and wait for others to agree with you; if it happens it happens. Until then, we can't keep that bit in the plot summary. All I ask is you wait until a consensus to form on your viewpoint; that's all. If it does, it goes back in. Don't try to force it in. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right, and I certainly have appreciated your viewpoints. The concept of consensus, though, is a tricky thing.  IMHO, in terms of adding or deleting, it cuts both ways.  Also, how do you weigh all the anonymous edits in terms of consensus?  The last two or three times, I stopped adding my info in directly, and started waiting for somebody else to add it (I never had to wait long)  I knew their versions would be reverted as written (usually without explanations) so I would edit their text to take into account issues that had been discussed.  I did go directly against your recent reverts, however, because you didn't actually give an opinion on the Journal or the text; you seemed to be reverting purely based on your interpretation of wiki-policy which I felt was not supported by the whole "Be Bold-Discuss-etc." thing-a-ma-bob.  If consensus is your concern, I do wish you would give your opinion.  I'm afraid that I only know the plot, and the journal is the only real issue I see with the plot summary (although I also do not like the flow of the Black Freighter paragraph, but I don't have a better proposal) That is why my edits are mostly on this.  Still, as I said, you may be right, and I may be too focused on it.  That's why I threw in the RFC, to get some outside perspective.  Thanks for your attention, advice and . . . consideration . . . in all of this. --Bertrc (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically it's best to only take into account people who join the discussion on the talk page. A lot of people will edit pages without knowing whatever discussion is behind it; if they join a talk page discussion, then you at least know their motives. Anyways, I appreciate your many attempts to actually discuss the issue. I've been on so many other pages where people are insistent on adding things "just because". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you want to archive the other talk page discussions now that we have the RFC? I didn't archive them because I didn't know if you still wanted to use the sections, but the page is still pretty long. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, now you offer to archive. :-)  Since we just started the RFC, I suggest we leave them up for at least for a few days.  Would you be able to adjust the links in my original RFC post to continue pointing to them after archiving?  On an aside, I do not know the ettiquette for RFC's.  I noticed that you and Hiding are not doing any additional indenting.  Is that the style? Please feel free to adjust the location and indents of my posts.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks : It's a habit of mine. I even say it to people who take my order at fast food restaurants. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So do I, but people taking our orders are doing something specifically for us. If we thanked the person taking the order of the man next to us, however . . . :-) --Bertrc (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: citing sources: the footnote itself is sufficient attribution to Reynolds, as I can tell you from much previous experience in citing source and dealing with FAC and FAR. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that your text didn't make clear what was being cited. You were only citing from the second sentence on.  Now that you have qualified it, editors know where they can make changes. --Bertrc (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The placement of the citation indicates that the information directly preceeded by it is covered by the source. This is standard sourcing practice on wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * except that "Preceding" is a bit vague in your case. Normally, I would think "preceding" refers to the preceding sentence or quotes or qualified text.  Your citation covered more than just the preceding sentence, did not follow quotes and wasn't qualified.  What is the standard you use for "preceding"?  On an aside, does Reynolds really use "mistakenly kills" and "acceidentally attacks"? --Bertrc (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Preceeding" can cover all text prior the the citation in a paragraph, unless another citation appears. This is standard sourcing practice on Wikipedia. As for the aside, I need to double-check the Reynolds book. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It might amuse you to know that I figured out a way to work in the last scene into the Watchmen plot synopsis when I was falling asleep last night in a way that addressed both of our concerns. Unfortunately I forgot what I had worked out. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I archived the journal RFC a few days per the comment you left on the talk, unless you mean you want me to archive the current talk page except for the "spoiler" RfC. Is that whay you mean? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * D'OH! :-)  Didn't that happen to some famous poet?  I think we should leave the RFC journal thread:  (well, the RFC tag is removed, so it is no longer an RFC discussion, but you know what I mean)  I was asking if you could archive the two earlier journal threads:  and  --Bertrc (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's taken care of. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
re:. . . This wasn't testing. I thought that the small caps looked odd and broke the flow of the prose with their placement partway through the sentence. I thought it worked better with the small caps starting from the start of the sentence. Now you may disagree, and I am not that set on the idea, but I don't consider my change "unconstructive." I also thought my edit comment (combined with looking at the edit itself) explained my thoughts. How do you think I should have phrased it? --Bertrc (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, meant to issue the standard test notice, as it looked (from a diff standpoint} to be a test. After assessing your edit, I would say it is fine, I also noticed, and would like to point this out to you, that I self-reverted moments after I reverted your edit. Removing my warning to clean your record. Thanks--Res2216firestar 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TVM. I did notice your self-revert.  I was more concerned with my record (Ah, the dangers of pride  :-)  )  Thanks.  On an aside, you may want to work on the standard test message you use.  You might want to reword it along the lines of ". . . This seems to be a test edit . . ." or some such instead of ". . . This seems to be unconstructive . . .". --Bertrc (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The message I left was not the standard test notice, this template is the notice I meant to leave, the one I left was the first level for vandalism, I just hit the wrong button. Thanks--Res2216firestar 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * :-D --Bertrc (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Journal
I've tried this,, as a compromise position between all views. Let me know what you think at Talk:Watchmen. Hiding T 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * . . . :-D I am amazed that that has not been reverted.  I originally wanted to go that minimalist approach on the journal, but everybody's concerns kept adding to it. I think you will run into complaints about "leaving open the potential" as some might consider that speculative.  (Personally, I think "leaving open the possibility" would be better phrasing but that would probably cause even more complaints)  I like the way you introduce the journal, but I think a conclusion closer to 68.236.250.22's   I will give more thoughts in the official discussion.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, we would not want to over use possible. However, I would swap them.  I don't know if you can "leave open" a potential for something.  ie. series ends with the potential publication,leaving open the possibility. --Bertrc (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded
Re: I have responded on the Controversy section on Talk:Jackie Evancho. Silver seren C 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded there, as well --Bertrc (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tim Wise
White Like Me: Reminds me of Eddie Murphy's sketch in which he played a white guy infiltrating the white community to see what white people are like when a black person is not around. It's hilarious. Cresix (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Noel Canning case
The unsuccessful party in the lower court is always the Petitioner in the Supreme Court. So the case name was NLRB v. Noel Canning in the Court of Appeals, but it's Noel Canning v. NLRB in the Supreme Court. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If that is the case, feel free to change it, but then why do the supreme court web sites list NLRB as the petitioner?  Am I looking at the wrong sites, or are they still referring to the lower court case? I only swapped them because I had trouble tracking it down in google, using Noel as the petitioner.  -- Bertrc  (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I had it backward. It was Noel Canning v. NLRB in the Court of Appeals, and it's NLRB v. Noel Canning in the Supreme Court. (Ordinarily the NLRB goes into court as the petitioner to enforce one of its orders, but in this case the employer wanted to be in court first because it got to pick the venue, which given the way the D.C. Circuit ruled was a very good move for them.) Sorry about the mistake. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=578053032 your edit] to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * cite web | url = http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/az-aapsguncontrol-idUSnPNDC73885+1e0+

Thanks for the talk post - good edit
Thanks for the help on editing the reference to stand your ground defense. I think the wording suggested on my talk page doesn't align with the preferatory portion of the sentance, since it references 'the shooting of trayvon martin' - and that is not a 'defendant' per your suggested rewording. So the whole sentance would need to be reworded then. I think the current version captures the facts adequately. Thanks again. Endofathom (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Heh, | the wording I used in your talk page was just some extra info.  I wasn't proposing that for the article.  :-)  -- Bertrc  (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tair Kaminer
Greetings, Bert! I've followed up with a response and further comment to the issue you raised in May on the Talk:Tair Kaminer page. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 28 May 2020 15:02:50 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing you of it either! :-P~  ;-)   :-D  I agree 100%.  Your original quote actually supported my point -- In these two conflicting reports, one given by the Bible in 1 Samuel, and the other given by the Amelekite as reported in 2 Samuel, the Amelekites account is not trustworthy -- And I found another apologetics work that essentially says the same thing. Your later two quotes are more explicit, although I cannot access them for context.  I have editted to include your links. -- Bertrc  (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Please see WP:RSN about Hushbeck. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page
I thought it better to put here, as it's more useful for you to have the information on your own talk page. You have options as detailed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. In particular the dispute resolution noticeboard might be your most productive next step. If it is becoming more of a user conduct dispute (rather than purely a content dispute) then your options are detailed here. In particular you can report User conduct at WP:ANI and edit warring at WP:AN/3RR. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Polyamorph. I raised a dispute resolution. -- Bertrc  (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)