Jump to content

Talk:Gabe Carimi

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

Nicknames

[edit]

Per WP:BRD: I tried to remove the cluster of nicknames from the first sentence, but User:Epeefleche reverted it, saying "it is standard to reflect nicknames in the first sentence". Now please explain to me where has this been determined as "standard"? I don't see "Anytime" on Devin Hester, "Lights Out" on Shawne Merriman, "Matty Ice" on Matt Ryan. Neither do I see "Black Mamba" on Kobe Bryant, "Big Ticket" on Kevin Garnett, "Zebo" on Zach Randolph, "The Big Aristotle" on Shaquille O'Neal. If anything, you sometimes see one very catchy nick listed, like "Big Ben" Roethlisberger, or Jerome "The Bus" Bettis. But (i) I don't see Carimi's nicknames being that popular, and (ii) there is no reason to list a whole bunch of them in the first sentence. --bender235 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While they are verifiable, I do agree that they shouldn't be in the lead. They're not used very often when speaking about him and because of there being three listed, it causes a lot of clutter in the lead. At most, one of these nicknames should be there.--Giants27(T|C) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strip out the Hammer from the first sentence (which is somewhat repetitive). That perhaps addresses Bender's characterizations of "the cluster" and "a whole bunch of them", to describe the number "3". But as to the general proposition, there are many articles that reflect nicknames in the first sentence -- just as they reflect foreign names for foreign ballplayers in the first sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me an article that lists more than one nickname in the lead. --bender235 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bender -- please stop being tendentious. You complained about a "cluster". Your complaint was addressed. Two is not a cluster. You complained about "a whole bunch of them". Two is not a whole bunch of them. Time to put down the stick. His names have first been reported in the press recently -- in the last month -- and since then have been repeated a number of times. Your last comment was an otherstuffexists comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I complained about having two barely known nicknames in the article's first sentence. Show me any other article where this is the case! The only one I can think of is Deion Sanders, where both "Prime Time" and "Neon Deon" are listed, which in that particular case makes sense because these nicks are both immensely popular. However, neither of Carimi's nickname is as popular as Sanders'. Therefore, they should be removed from the first sentence. --bender235 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Bender on this one, the nicknames shouldnt be in the lead. Just my 2 cents.--Yankees10 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yankees. The reasons given by Bender were that it is a "cluster" and "a whole bunch of them". It is no longer. They've been reduced, to two. Bender is perhaps annoyed that the last time he engaged in tendentious editing at this article, the consensus of the discussion was contrary to his view. Here, his concern has now been addressed, and his "complaint" doesn't seem to apply. As to popularity, the Jewish Hammer nickname was just 700 times just this past week, and obviously the Bear Jew one has just been used for 2 days, yet it still has over 100 google hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "annoyed" because I "lost" our last discussion. Wikipedia is not a game. In that discussion I was just thinking ahead to Carimi's NFL career, in which he'll very likely play right tackle, therefore describing him as "left tackle" in the first sentence made no sense. That turned out to be correct, am I wrong? --bender235 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You complained about a "cluster of nicknames" above. That has been addressed -- one nickname is not a "cluster". You complained about having "a whole bunch of them" above. That has been addressed. One nickname is not "a whole bunch of them". Giants said that at most one should be there. That's what there are. Bender -- your editing continues, following your not getting your way and your editing against consensus on the "left tackle" issue on this bio, to be tendentious and disruptive. Editors have heeded your concerns about "a cluster" and "a whole bunch of nicknames", and the number has been reduced from three to one. Please stop your further tendentious editing -- coming in the wake of the other issue, it threatens to erode the assumption of good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. If you read my initial comment, I asked you to explain where the "standard" of "reflecting nicknames in the first sentence" has been established. I continued with listing half a dozen athletes' bios that do not include there respective nicknames in the first sentence. Further I mentioned that there are some exceptions, but only for well-established and commonly used nicknames (like "Big Ben" Roethlisburger), and I concluded that neither of Carimi's nicknames is well-established, therefore none of them should be mentioned in the first sentence. Yankees10 agreed that the "the nicknames shouldnt be in the lead". Giants27 agreed "that they shouldn't be in the lead".
Now I'm trying to phrase this as politely as possible, but it is beyond my grasp how someone could possibly be too dumb to see the consensus here. It is, in case you still didn't get it: no f#*!ing nicknames in the first sentence, for god's sake. --bender235 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giants and I are fine with nicknames in the first sentence. Your initial complaint was as I quoted. I didn't characterize -- I quoted your focus on "a cluster of nicknames" and on "a whole bunch of nicknames". That has been addressed. You are now, in disagreement with me and Giants, insisting that you delete one sole nickname. There is no consensus for that. That sole nickname even used as the entire title of articles on Carimi; see [The Bear Jew]. You have added to your non-consensus editing, which is tendentious and disruptive, a violation of wp:civil. If you continue to edit disruptively and violate wp:civil, despite the fact that we have addressed your initial concern of "a cluster of nicknames" and "a whole bunch of nicknames" by reducing them to one -- per Giants (and my) view -- then you will be engaging in continued disruptive behavior. I ask you not to do that. We've listened, we've reacted, and you only seem inclined to push the envelope and engage in deletions that lack consensus support.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For now I'm ignoring that other nonsense you just wrote, but please answer two questions:
(1) why do you keep ignoring Yankees10's opinion?
(2) where, when and by whom has the "standard to reflect nicknames in the first sentence" been established? --bender235 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no standard, so I'm not entirely sure why that would have been brought up. At this point, I don't view having a few nicknames in the first sentence as being an issue. I have seen it in articles before, such as Brandon Marshall, Carlos Zambrano, and LeBron James come to mind. In my opinion, this is a non-issue and certainly not worthy of almost a month's discussion.--Giants27(T|C) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but since this discussion now is in full swing, we should continue until consensus has evolved. To clarify my point, I'm not saying the nicknames should be removed entirely from this article (or any, for that matter). They just should not be bold-faced in the first sentence. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, only the subject's title/name or its synonyms should be bold-faced. While in some cases nicknames are quasi-synonyms for athletes' names (like "The Fridge" for William Perry or "Smokin Joe" for Joe Frazier), this is not the case with "Bear Jew" for Carimi.
BTW: I wonder if I get some answers from Epeefleche in the foreseeable future. --bender235 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames in the WP:LEAD are a borderline thing. My opinion is that when the nickname is often used in place of the name, it belongs in the LEAD as an alternate name. See William Perry (American football), Walt Frazier and Jerome Bettis. When the nickname is more of a secondary referent, like Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett, it does not belong. In this case, the nickname is so new and its prominence has not been established as a primary referent. However, my inclination reading the press ([1], [2], [3], [4]), is that they are trying to pin this nickname on him and it is sticking. I would mention it in the lead, with a main body text explanation of its newness and reasoning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche is driving me crazy. This is about the nicknames in the first sentence. I don't know how often I've written this here and everywhere else, but he still doesn't get it. For some reason he keeps pretending this is about a "cluster" of nicknames (that he proclaims to have removed now), but this is just bullshit. It was all about the nicknames, right from the beginning. I know this comment seems redudant, but I don't know what else to do to finally get this into Epeefleche's head. --bender235 (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer? Okay, consider this the last time I asked this: where, when and by whom has the "standard to reflect nicknames in the first sentence" been established? --bender235 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus? Giants27 opposes the nickname in the lead, Yankees10 opposes the nickname in the lead, I oppose the nickname in the lead. Explain to me how that is consensus for this nickname in the lead. And just a warning, but the next time you take me for a fool and assert consensus w/out explaining who actually agrees with you, I'll file an WP:ANI --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read Giant27's last post. Please re-read my posts. Please re-read Tony's post. Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

To finally settle this: should Carimi's little known nickname "The Bear Jew" appear in this article's first sentence, or only the "personal" section?

Here are the reactions of all of the editors to your suggestion; 3 disagreed with you, and 1 only agreed with your original point that multiple nicknames should not be in the lede (which has been addressed):

  • Epeefleche – "You complained about a "cluster". Your complaint was addressed. [Now one] is not a cluster. You complained about "a whole bunch of them". [Now one] is not a whole bunch of them. Time to put down the stick."
  • Yankees10 – Responding to your complaint about a "cluster" and "whole bunch of" nicknames in the lede, agreed that there should not be multiple nicknames in the lede. There are no longer multiple nicknames – just one.
  • Giants27 – "At most, one of these nicknames should be there". (Which is the case now). And – 23 days ago – "I don't view having a few nicknames in the first sentence as being an issue. I have seen it in articles before.... In my opinion, this is a non-issue and certainly not worthy of almost a month's discussion."
  • TonyTheTiger – "My opinion is that when the nickname is often used in place of the name, it belongs in the LEAD as an alternate name. See ... In this case ... my inclination reading the press ([5], [6], [7], [8]), is that they are trying to pin this nickname on him and it is sticking. I would mention it in the lead, with a main body text explanation of its newness and reasoning".

You are better than this. When weeks go by, you leave multiple posts, and the consensus is against you, there is no need to disruptively waste the community's time by stirring the pot yet again. Tendentious editing is considered disruptive, and inappropriate. See the behavioral guideline WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which states: "A disruptive editor is an editor who is tendentious: continues editing an article ... in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, besides your obnoxious ownership behaviour, that you call "consensus" where there is none. At best this is a tie between to opposing views. --bender235 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with nicknames in the opening sentence. It's something I've seen quite often in my wiki-travels.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Jew Revisited

[edit]

I made an edit change that is correct and it was removed by Epeefleche. It appears that he may have some issues regarding the ownership of this article. "The Bear Jew" as a nickname DOES NOT belong in this article. It is not a nickname that Gabe Carimi uses, nor one that people use about him. In fact, if you read this source (which I cited in my earlier edits), Carimi HIMSELF clearly states that "The Bear Jew" is NOT his nickname. http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/grizzly-detail/Carimi-Has-New-Number-Needs-Nickname-120994684.html. Now, this change is cited but this user keeps reverting my changes and I keep getting warnings. This change is correct and should be made to the article. I'm unclear from the warnings why I appear to be the one that has to take it to the talk page, when I have clearly cited a source where the player himself states this is not his nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.61.218 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your edit change was based on a false statement. As was discussed here, where by reviewing the comments and clicking through to the links you will be better able to understand why you received warnings from multiple editors, including a sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what a sysop is, nor do I see why some sysop incorrectly warning me about removing incorrect information from this article is relevant. Anyways, you have not addressed the issue which is that this is not even a nickname that Carimi uses. It is some media concoction that you think is funny/relevant/cool for whatever reason and despite the player himself stating this IS NOT his nickname (see article I have linked to about 5 times now), you insist on leaving this information in the lead of this story. I do not understand your ownership issues here. It is clear from the earlier conversations on this that you are insistent that this stays in the lead despite multiple opinions (now including mine) to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.61.218 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You -- yet again -- inappropriately remove portions of page content, including refs supporting them. Even after this was discussed with you.
In addition, your assertion that "no one references him as "the Bear Jew"" was not a true statement. And your assertion that "he is never referenced by this name" was not a true statement. They are belied of course not only by the refs that you deleted. But also by the many RS refs reflected here. These refs are in direct conflict with your assertions.
Finally, you may wish to reconsider your above assertion as to the NBC ref, from when he was first drafted, which reported on the nickname Carimi tweeted he was considering adopting. You seem to not understand it. Or understand -- or have read -- the other articles you were pointed to. You've now been warned, in just the past few hours, by a number of editors. Please don't edit war. You now seem to have added a number of names to the lede in a POINTy display, and based on your mis-reading of one ref and failure to read the sources supplied to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you can't read. I do not know how you could possibly infer that from the article which I have referenced multiple times. The article clearly states Carimi himself does not use that nickname. What more justification do you need? I might as well publish an article calling you "The Mighty Carrot" and then cite it here. It apparently does not matter if the person himself does not ascribe to the name or not. Moreover, the lede of the article reads ridiculously (and wrong) without having any of his actual nicknames in there. As such, that seems like a better alternative than your very wrong lede. At least by burying the wrong nickname in some that are actually used, people will get some correct information in the first sentence of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.61.218 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not personally attack me, by accusing me — saying I "can't read".
The article — written directly after Carimi was drafted by the Bears — is about, given that he is now a Bear, him considering adopting a new nickname. The title of the article makes it clear: "Carimi Has New Number, Needs Nickname". And the relevant text is "Speaking of nicknames, Carimi tweeted that he is considering a new one. He was known as "The Jewish Hammer" during his college days at Wisconsin, but threw out the idea of "The Bear Jew." By the context, we understand that when Carimi threw out the suggestion that he now be nicknamed the Bear Jew, Carimi was identifying that as a possible nickname and sharing his suggestion.
This is supported by the other refs I pointed you to. Including:
  1. a Yahoo article stating that Carimi "happily embraced the Jewish community in Chicago, giving himself the nickname "Bear Jew""
  2. an interview with Carimi in which he was asked "They called you the Jewish Hammer and now, the Bear Jew — a reference to the movie “Inglourious Basterds ” that actually works quite well with your new team. Do you like it?", and he answered "Yeah, the Hebrew Hammer was taken, so I think this mixes it up a bit."
  3. a NFL.com article ("Carimi (nicknamed "Bear Jew" after the heat-seeking character from Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds"").
... and all manner of other articles that are consistent with that being his nickname.
You are mis-stating the facts, deleting refs, and deleting text it supports as you edit war. Now, you have added to that your POINTy editing, referenced above. I would appreciate it if you would kindly desist, as this is disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have not blanked the article as you have attest. I have improved the article by adding to the lede. You have done nothing BUT attack me personally by following me around and reverting good-faith edits. I have deleted no references and deleted no text. I have added text to the article. I also would appreciate if you would kindly desist as I have attempted in good faith to improve the article. But you seem to have your mind made up and will not listen. Can some of these people from the previous discussion of this step in to help because Epeefleche will not seem to listen to reason. Carimi "threw out the idea of "The Bear Jew." You have said it yourself! So why do you insist on keeping it in the lede? Moreover, I have even kept "Bear Jew" in the lede. Fine. YOU WIN. However, you have now deleted information from the lede (referenced by the way) which is EXACTLY what you have accused me of. Why is it ok in your situation and not mine?

Why can we not leave the more complete version of the lede? Why are you so insistent on it reading EXACTLY as you want it. That is not what wikipedia is about. The version I have helped build is more complete and thorough. I would appreciate it if you would stop edit warring with me. Thanks. Also I do not know what you mean by POINTy editing. I'm simply trying to make a more thorough, complete article. Thanks. Regards.

I have not attacked you personally. I have criticized certain acts you engaged in. As have other editors, including a sysop, on your talk page. Those criticism were well-founded, and supported amply. "Threw out" here obviously means "shared for consideration" -- just read my above post, and the refs pointed to, and Carimi's own statements. As to your POINTy edits, res ipsa loquitur—the background is a stark one as to which to view them, and I've already responded to at length with regard to this and similar issues above, below, and on your talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I have not attacked you personally." - Epefleecche...uh...that is decidedly not true. "Mr. IP" 86.89.61.218 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-statements/edit warring by IP 86.89.61.218

[edit]
  • I request that IP 86.89.61.218 not mis-state facts.
I said that the IP is "deleting refs, and deleting text it supports as you edit war." He most certainly has done that.
He writes above: "I have deleted no references and deleted no text." That is not true. See, e.g., his deletions here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
Please note that you have done the same thing to my edits. You seem to have forgotten to include that.86.89.61.218 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I indicated above multiple mis-statements that he made, as he engaged in those deletions of refs and text. I would ask that he stop making mis-statements, and not edit war. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nicknames should be in the lead at all, and I don't see a clear consensus in one of the above sections. I understand that he is referenced by these nicknames in some media articles, but I do not feel that the nicknames are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. If these nicknames were removed from the lead, would the reader notice that the opening to his biography failed to mention them? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Eagles on this one.--Yankees10 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no nicknames in the lede also, in my opinion. None of these nicknames warrant inclusion in the lede. 86.89.61.218 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position here, but as a consumer of Chicago sports media, this nickname is not really used widely. Does not warrant inclusion in the lede. I do not really even think in the article, but I think that is a good compromise (Leave it in the article, take it out of the lede). Also, I resent the accusation of edit warring and misstatements here by Epeefleche. I have tried to improve the article multiple times in multiple ways. Epeefleche has deleted/rejected/reverted every suggestion I have made despite trying to compromise. 86.89.61.218 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP -- while there is one nickname in the lede, which as reflected above is used amply in the media and embraced by Carimi himself, the consensus is that we not have more than one nickname reflected in the lede. Your editing history and comments reflect that your addition of multiple other nicknames to the lede is a POINTy one. You don't support one nickname in the lede. But to make a POINT you now seek to deluge the lede with nicknames, to make a "point" -- despite the clear consensus on this page not to have multiple nicknames in the lede. I am sorry that you resent my observations as to your warnings, and as to your mis-statements, but they are accurate and supported by diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there consensus to have any of the nicknames in the lead? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any, but once again Epeefleche has reverted the article back to the way he wants it. Also, Epeefleche, please do not engage in personal attacks (i.e. "Mr. IP).86.89.61.218 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: I still support the "no nickname in the lead, at all" notion, like I did a year ago. --bender235 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can mark me down on the "anti" nickname in the lead camp, and I strongly oppose listing more than one nickname in the lead. But mostly I'd just like to see this silly "debate" settled. I'm going to unwatch this page to avoid getting dragged into this minutia. If you need me, you know where to find me. — DeeJayK (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus a year ago was "only one nickname in the lede". To avoid a cluster of nicknames. I did not support it being limited to one. But that was the consensus, and I am fine with consensus.

As to usage of this nickname in RSs, that of course has only proliferated since that discussion. Prominent usage of his nickname appears in RSs. It is often in headlines. Of RSs ranging from the official football RS news source -- NFL.com -- to Yahoo, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, NFL New Network, Dallas News, etc. A google search yields over 11,000 hits.

Including:

  1. "Around the League Chicago's Carimi -- aka 'Bear Jew' -- feasts on Hanukkah latkes"
    ("What does it take to fill up the "Bear Jew"? ... Carimi (nicknamed "Bear Jew" after the heat-seeking character from Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds"),
    NFL.com, December 23, 2011
  2. "Chicago's Jewish community embraces first-round Chicago Bears draft pick Gabe Carimi"
    (his "nickname was inspired by the Nazi-clubbing character in Quentin Tarantino's WWII adventure "Inglourious Basterds." Chicagoland, meet "Bear Jew." "Bear Jew," meet Chicagoland."),
    The Chicago Tribune, May 25, 2011
  3. "‘The Bear Jew’ is coming to tackle Chicago"
    ("Football is big on nicknames — Walter Payton was “Sweetness,” William Perry was “The Fridge.” The nickname that has been floated for Carimi is “The Bear Jew.” “It’s from ‘Inglourious Basterds,’’ he said, referring to Quentin Tarantino’s movie.... “It’s sorta stark, isn’t it?” I asked... “Yeah, definitely,” he laughed. “But it works out good, because I’m on the Bears. Let ‘em do what they want — it’s all in good humor.”"),
    Chicago Sun-Times, August 4, 2011
  4. "Celebrating Hanukkah with Chicago’s ‘Bear Jew,’ Gabe Carimi"
    (Carimi "happily embraced the Jewish community in Chicago, giving himself the nickname "Bear Jew""),
    Yahoo, December 21, 2011
  5. Interview: "7 Questions for ‘Bear Jew’ Gabe Carimi"
    (Question: "They call... you ... the Bear Jew — a reference to the movie “Inglourious Basterds ” that actually works quite well with your new team. Do you like it?" Answer: "Yeah, the Hebrew Hammer was taken, so I think this mixes it up a bit."),
    The Forward, May 24, 2011
  6. "The Bear Jew",
    Chicago Sun-Times, May 20, 2011
  7. NFL Network Interview: "Carimi Talks Left Tackle, Nicknames, Superheroes to NFL Network"
    (Question: "There seems to be some confusion over your nickname. I’ve seen ”The Jewish Hammer” and “The Bear Jew.” Which one is it?" Answer: GC: "Probably both. But “The Bear Jew” is probably more recent, and it’s obviously more fitting now."), June 27, 2011
  8. "Former Badger Carimi, the 'Bear Jew'?"
    ("Carimi is ... loving the attention drawn to the nickname that has surfaced among the windy city faithful. In less than a month since being drafted ... [he] is being called the "Bear Jew""),
    620 WTMJ Newradio, May 25, 2011
  9. "Football’s newest ‘Bear Jew’ hits Chicago’s ground running"
    (he "was crowned the “Bear Jew” – a reference to Quentin Tarantino’s hit movie, “Inglourious Bastards.”... Love this Bear Jew."), The Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2011
  10. "Gabe Carimi aka Chicago Bear Jew",
    Dallas News, August 24, 2011

--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no consensus for one nickname in the lead. Was the discussion closed by an uninvolved editor or did you decide what was consensus since you own the article? As I've said, there can be a million references to the nickname in the media, but that does not make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eagles 24/7 that on reading this page one does not see a clear consensus for one side or the other. I also agree that number and/or "quality" of references should have only a small bearing on whether any particular piece of information belongs in the lead of an article. — DeeJayK (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please end the edit warring on this article?

[edit]

I just recently came across this article and I'm amazed and disappointed to see the amount of energy and effort that's been spent in the past 10+ months on such a seemingly minor point as to whether the lead contains a comprehensive list of nicknames. Do you people really have nothing better to do than to argue interminably about this topic? Overall, I would personally come down on the side of not including any of Carimi's "nicknames" in the lead as I don't feel that any of them is particularly notable; I'm an NFL (not Bears) fan, and I've never heard/seen Carimi referred to by any of these nicknames. My opinion aside, I would urge all of the editors involved in this extended edit- and flame-war to please reassess your priorities and determine if this issue is worth the amount of vitriol and effort it has engendered. — DeeJayK (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but if you see the article, yet again Epefleeche has reverted/changed/edited the article back to his preferred view without consensus. Why is this allowed to happen? Even in the middle of this discussion Epefleeche has reverted the article. 86.89.61.218 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gabe Carimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gabe Carimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabe_Carimi&oldid=1206547764"