User talk:Bremskraft

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Our basic guideline for notability is at WP:BIO. The subject appears to have had several profiles written about him, mostly due to a controversial remark he made in a class. Articles that are well-developed and often-edited shouldn't have a speedy delete tag out on them. If you have doubts about such cases it's better to AfD them instead. I'm fairly certain that this article would survive, but you're welcome to nominate it to see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, using edit summaries is a courtesy to other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy before re-adding a disputed DB tag to an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs

I would love to expand this section. Many groups are already listed in the source that is already in the article. I tried to keep it simple and only listed Colson, Falwell and Wimber because they are well known, and because they are not directly spokesmen for particular denominations (woops Wimber is). There is a list of 200 professional Christians listed somewhere I remember. Yes, most are evangelical. Evangelicals "led the charge". However, for me to say this would be "original research", my interpretation of the facts. Who counts as Evangelical? It is hard to find an objective definition of this.

As it turns out, there are several Evangelical groups that are very outspoken supporters of gender neutral translation. In fact, I have several friends in such groups. Evangelicals are not united on the issue, and Wiki cannot present things as though they are. The objective fact is, a large group formed around the Colorado Springs statement. Look carefully, every issue is related to maximizing gender neutrality, without losing translatable information in the process. No wonder it got a lot of support. It is not against removing unnecessary over translation of gender.

Those who produced and those who have supported the Colorado Springs statement, have not even described themselves as Christian, let alone Evangelical. There is an objectively reportable bias, however. They are all American! Americans are actually more fussy about gender neutral English than UK or Australian speakers. If you want a valid criticism, use the "this does not reflect a world-wide view" tag. What is stated is supported by the reference already provided. However, as I said, I would love to expand further on those who support the guidelines, it would impress most Americans interested in the Bible.

It is irrelevant whether the people who hold the Colorado view are black or white, young or old, male or female. The issue is whether they are reliable and verifiable ... they are. Given the other POV is already in the article. Something needs to be said about probably the largest, most diverse and best organized group. The bottom line is though, I'm very happy to expand the article, but then people will accuse us of bias in favour of this group. Seeing as I agree with some (but not all) of their conclusions, I welcome the invitation to expand description of their view. Thank you. Alastair Haines 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alastair. Thank you for your long, thoughtful response. What I find relevant about this topic is: who is asking these questions about gender neutrality and what kind of theology influenced their decisions? Listing the sponsors of and presenters at the conference simply gives us more information. By giving more information we are allowing the Wikipedia reader to decide if he or she would like to do further research on this topic. This is not POV, but merely facts. It is important to list these facts because the Religion and Gender page simply lists the conclusions of the conference - not the reasons behind these conclusions. Therefore, the Wikipedia reader must do further research to find this answer. Where does s/he go? To the Episcipalians or the Baptists? (Also, the fact that the conference was in Colorado Springs makes it clear the conference was sponsored by Evangelical Christians by many - though possibly not most - Americans)--Bremskraft 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Discrimination Project

Greetings about the Template for Discrimination Project. I'm leaving a note for you and other recent editors so the back and forth editing of the Discrimination template will cease and those interested can dialog about the need to include or not include an article. Please use Template talk:Discrimination and start a new section "Include _____ ?" so that others can also help keep the discussion constructive. thank you. Benjiboi 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Benjiboi--Bremskraft 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bremskraft's Contention: we are masking POV by invoking Wikipedia rules inconsistently

Hi Bremskraft, I saw your edits to Christina Hoff Sommers and I just wanted to drop you a line. We have a number of policies on WP about tone and phrasing. I've been mentioning NPOV to you and I really think you should have a close look at it. Describing groups organizations etc as "conservative" or as liberal is a subjective opinion, its also a type of peacock wording because it "colours" the description. This is a violation of NPOV. Now, if a reliable source called them conservative it might be okay to use it if you explain who said and in what context in a footnote along with the reference. A little bureaucratic I know - but inclusion on Wikipedia is not based on the truth value of a statement but the statement's verifiability. This point is salient to the edit you made to the "see alsos" on Feminism where you characterized masculism and the men's movement as counter movements - this is subjective and not neutral. In this case its not entirely accurate - while there are vocal anti-feminists in some strains of the men's movement there are also pro-feminists. You can check the articles for references. I also notice nobody left you a welcome template (this has links to a lot of policy and other tools) - I'll stick one on top of the page.--Cailil ^talk 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, the two organizations I labeled "conservative" are self-described conservative organizations. In fact, being "conservative" is the gist of what they do. Also, it seemed odd to me that internal links labeled "gender feminism" went to a page about a person rather than about the topic. I was simply in the process of fixing that. Again, I'm quite busy today, but I will be making that change soon.

If you check the talk page you'll see I did that yesterday. Gender feminism was unsourced and rather than putting it forward for deletion I merged it - since its a neologism coined by Hoff Sommers I thought putting it there would the best solution. Neologism don't get there own articles - see WP:NEO

The convese solution of removing gender feminism from the list - because its not a recognized type of feminism, but rather a derogatory neologism coined by Hoff Sommers - may be another solution.

Also why did you revert my wording of the see alsos. "Counter Movements" is not accurate or neutral; if you don't like "related" you could use "other". BTW if you look into Masculism and the Men's movement you'll see that they are related to feminism--Cailil ^talk 20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bremskraft, I'm contacting you via your talk page because I'm still disengaged from the feminism talkpage discussion. I need to explain that I am not annoyed with you nor do I hold a vastly divergent personal opinion to yours but one's opinions have no place on WP. Wikipedia is about verifability not truth & certainly not opinion. Have you considered the effects of your argument about Masculism etc for the pages listed in {{Feminism sidebar}}. For instance as it stands Chicana feminism is completely unsourced - that doesn't mean that Chicana feminism doesn't exist, it means that there's a problem with its article. We don't classify subjects by the state of their wikipedia articles we classify them by what we can source - what we can verify. I know you're trying to improve WP and I admire your enthusiasm and tenacity and we all agree that those Men's rights pages are a mess and if anyone could help pull them out of the mire I would be delighted - but what you may not know is that those pages have been vandalized to the point of breaking my heart. If you look at Men's Rights talk page you'll see what I mean.
Please bear in mind that when someone disputes an edit or reverts it is best practice to discuss without reverting to your preferred version. Consider this, I've rewritten 60-70% of Feminism in my userspace but I'm asking for people to take their time & examine the proposal, propose changes, dispute content etc. I've even added a notice to project gender studies about it in case anybody wants to look in. And again I would appreciate your interest in that. I've put in all that effort in order to build consensus
Just a note on the Gender feminism - Christina Hoff Sommers merger. The reason I merged these articles was the gender feminism subject is a neologism and as per WP:NEO, it wouldn't qualify for an article but by merging it into Christina Hoff Sommers the information is kept and it goes somewhere where there has been editing activity so it will probably be sourced. Also I am really sorry about the length of my comments and I do apologize if I sounded angry--Cailil ^talk 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, frankly I do not have the time to continue to reiterate the arguments I have posted on the Feminism page. But here are the relevant issues to what you just posted: 1) Wikipedia rules are applied inconsistently; as a result, citing Wikipedia rules has become in many instances a way to mask arguments for a certain point of view (whether consciously or not), or conversely for an "NPOV" goal that that no one has defined in the context of what it means to have a masculinism page. 2)It's wonderful that you are taking the time to carefully reorganize many of the pages. Unfortunately, not all of us have the same amount of time, and yet it is still necessary to challenge how certain things are characterized if they are not correct.--Bremskraft 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ireland

Thank you for catching that discrepancy! :) Popkultur 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deletion

Why have you deleted comments and concerns from me and other users from this page on at least two separate occasions? Doing this does not promote open discussion. Neitherday 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to find the comments non-constructive.--Bremskraft 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was unconstructive about the text you deleted in these edits: [1] and [2], other than that they were critical of some of your edits? Neitherday 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete large blocks of text. I moved them to their appropriate places.--Bremskraft 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite interesting. Your talk page is where other editors come to talk with you so this is the appropriate place for them. It would be more helpful if you addressed the concerns raised directly than further disrupting the process by eliminating them from the talk page. Please take this opportunity to respond to the concerns brought up. Benjiboi 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great than please respond to the comments that were constructively helping you towards your goal. Benjiboi 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is where some people tend to come to complain, not be constructively critical. I, for example, don't come to your talk page to complain. I talk via the talk page of an article. Please understand, I'm not interested in become a Wikipedia "super-editor." I'm simply interested in accuracy of articles.--Bremskraft 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning: you have violated WP:3RR. Please revert your last edit to Feminists for Life imediately, or I will be forced to report the violation. Neitherday 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always revert it yourself... --Bremskraft 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete silliness and over-zealotry

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3RR rule. You also appear to have been sockpuppetting or, at least, canvassing off-wiki support. This is not acceptable. When you return from your block, please use the talk page to discuss your concerns rather then edit warring. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not participated in "sock puppeteering" or "edit wars." Understand that I employed friends of mine to help, just as Neitherday employed her friend/acquaintance Benjiboi to revert all of my edits that were done over the course of several days. You are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. It is clear through the discussions on the Feminists for Life page that there is significant resistance to making any changes to the page, and this includes resistance from Neitherday. In fact, another user named "Joie de Vivre" was quite bullied in the discussion section. Please see prior discussions on that page. (By the way, the IP "216.255.40.133," which is listed on the discussion page is from Ayersville, OH, the unofficial headquarters of FFL). Also, because there has been such resistance to making any changes on the page, and because of an appeal to "consensus" rather than to neutrality or other "Wikipedia rules," unless I bring friends on with a similar desire to make changes to the page, the necessary changes will never be made. --Bremskraft 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Neitherday and would not call them my friend/acquaintance any more than any other editor on WP. Neitherday and I "met," coincidentally because both our comments to you about separate articles were deleted on these talk pages by you. I think the talk page commenst are quite clear that constructive changes, like to all articles, are welcome, but mass deleting content is generally not welcome. You are hereby invited to take part in the discussion to improving the article. I feel a lot of your edits were great, unfortunately they were bundled with others that were less so and simply way too many to sort out the good from the bad. We all want a better article so let's work together on that goal. Benjiboi 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't "mass delete" anything. You are over-dramatizing significantly. What I did was break up sections that were diffuse and meandering (going into lengthy detail about one or two people) and deleted information that was repeated in other sections.

In response to Neitherday, I personally feel there is a difference between gradual changes and changes done at a glacial pace (and that do nothing to address all of the NPOV problems). But the paternal attitude of Benjiboi and Netherday on the feminists for life page, along with one of those editor's seemingly concerted/irrational attempt to discredit me and my friends/colleagues, has successfully frustrated my ability to make meaningful changes to the page - changes that were recently affirmed by an administrator named [Nandesuka]. Benjiboi and Netherday were overzealous, and far too quick to work in conjunction to revert well reasoned edits (including correcting the format edits) that took considerable time to make over several days - far too much of my time. In fact, they were quick to accuse me what of Benjiboi and Netherday were doing together - breaking the dreaded 3 revert rule - and in such a way as to lose all the edits I had done over the course of several days.

The nature and culture of Wikipedia continues to fascinate me - namely the arbitrariness with which Wikipedia "rules" are applied. (How is it that one rule overrules another? in this case "consensus" taking precident over npov"? How is it that "consensus" is okay among some users, but not among others? How many people make a consensus? How do people here build coalitions? How are coalitions hidden? How does bullying happen via appeal to rules? ) This fascination will hopefully manifest in a popular culture article. For now I'm forced to join the ranks of Joi de Vivre, and others who have stopped trying to edit the Feminists for Life page.--Bremskraft 04:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would like to know why you continue to block me after my punitive period (24hrs) has expired. Heh, is intelligent content that much of a threat that you have to continually block me and the others who use this IP? --Bremskraft 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Understand that I employed friends of mine to help" This is a violation of WP:SOCK. --Yamla 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, thank you for posting the link to "meat-puppetteering." The page states:

"1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned.

2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity."

Of course the problem with this is - what if the people recruited are not "blind" voters? What if they didn't disrupt anything, but rather contributed to a conversation and pointed out flaws? This all seems rather silly, and I think will push intelligent and extremely knowledgeable people (specifically fellow graduate students) away from participation. --Bremskraft 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns include these: 1) inexperienced persons often fail to understand the aforementioned Wikipedia rules and practices, and therefore often introduce irrelevancies, violate principles such as WP:OR, and so on; 2) bringing in supporters who do not otherwise contribute to Wiki becomes a mere exercise in recruiting supporters of one's own agenda or viewpoint, rather than in finding consensus and reaching agreement among persons committed to the Wikipedia project as a whole. --Orange Mike 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike, please take a look at the feminists for life talk page, and you'll see that they weren't disruptive, rude, or unknowledgeable about the topic. And although they have new accounts, we as a group are by necessity familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. We routinely have to report plagiarism (of Wikipedia pages) by our undergraduate students. --Bremskraft 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bremskraft (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to know why I have been re-bocked after my punitive 24hr period expired for reverting 3 times.

Decline reason:

You are autoblocked, please follow the instructions at {{autoblock}} exactly. — Sandstein 11:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm confused

Do I need to repost the template to get myself unblocked? I don't quite understand how this works.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Bremskraft (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: unfortunately we can't help you if you don't paste the exact message in your window, for privacy reasons we can't know which user triggered your block. You probably have a line in your block message looking like {{unblock-auto|................}}. That's the line you need to paste. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other reviewing admins: Urgeback (talk · contribs), Sliat 1981 (talk · contribs) and Bremskraft (talk · contribs) have made the same sort of malformed unblock requests at about the same time, at times making references to one another. This would seem to indicate some sort of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Sandstein 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi other admins. I don't understand what is going on. I apologize if i made "malformed" unblock requests. I really have no idea how this works. I also have no idea who Urgeback or Sliat are. I often use shared IP's at university and other places.--Bremskraft 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing as a result of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bremskraft. All the accounts mentioned have been blocked and a proper explanation will be required before any of the accounts can be unblocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bremskraft (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

70.173.47.6 Reason: I waited patiently while I was blocked for 24hrs. Then I was blocked another 24hrs and I waited patiently for that to be up. Now I'm blocked indefinitely for reasons that I don't understand (I'm not a "sockpuppetteer," I don't have other accounts). At this point I would like to be unblocked so that the many others who use this IP can participate in Wikipedia if they wish. I no longer want to participate. I feel that Spartaz is over-reaching and I fear I am being blocked for ideological reasons rather than punitive ones. I apologize if these unblock requests are not well done. I don't know how to do them properly.

Decline reason:

The sockpuppetry is obvious among the malformed unblock requests on all five accounts listed at the suspected sockpuppet page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblocked

Per checkuser evidence (see ssp a checkuser has confirmed that are neither Urgeback nor Silat_1981. Despite that, I remain convinced that you were using RebelAcademics and Lalada76 as socks or meatpuppets to evade your 3RR block and continue edit warring. I have reduced your block to time served and your socks/meatpuppets will remain blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian feminism and Religion and feminism section

Hi Bremskraft, I hope you get this message. I found the most appropriate page for the material we were disputing on Talk:feminism. The article Christian feminism is perfect for these passages and I've put them in there. They could even be expanded. I've replaced the Feminism and Religion section on feminism with a summary of Jewish feminism, Islamic feminism and Christian feminism - I feel this is more appropriate for the parent article. I hope your problems last week wont put you off wikipedia for good and if you are considering coming back I would recommend looking at the mentorship programme - this will help you when dealing with wikipedia's processes and policies--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cailil. What you've done with the Feminism and Christian Feminism pages is very nice. Also, thanks for your patience with me. I've come to the easy conclusion that I shouldn't participate "in" Wikipedia any longer. My time spent here is best put toward teaching and research. I have also (unintentionally) put off my friends and peer's from participating in Wikipedia - and, I blocked a few of my university's IPs because of this foolery. So it's best that I focus on other things. You are doing a great job. Good luck. -bremskraft

Nomination of Chris Giunchigliani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Giunchigliani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Giunchigliani (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]