User talk:Brilliance

Welcome to my discussion page.

The Usage of the Word "Terrorist"

I have recently reverted your edits to the article Munich massacre. The use of the word "terrorist" is a hotly debated issue on wikipedia, and the consensus is that it should only be used in a situation such as "The US has designated X a terrorist organization". Other more descriptive words like militant, hostage-taker, hijacker, etc. should be used instead when possible. Thanks, Joshdboz 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the word "terrorist" is required in this situation. These groups are terrorist organizations and should therefore be called terrorist organizations. Calling them anything else allows them dignity that they dont deserve! Simply calling everybody a 'militant' makes a soldier and a terrorist equal. A terrorist is clearly completely different than a militant. These groups are the definition of terrorists. Brilliance 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I understand what you mean, but as the cliche goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Since wikipedia is NPOV, it's better to let facts speak for themselves instead of labeling people with emotionally charged and ambiguous terms. I would refer you to this guideline Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism for usage. Joshdboz 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the article to be neutral as well as inform the truth. Brilliance 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate your attempt to add in the sentence about BSO being a designated terrorist organization, but because this term is so controversial, you will need to cite your sources. Joshdboz 11:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of this. Brilliance 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Message

I recently read a very odd message on a discussion page.

It is [here] under "Wear it as a badge of honour"

I was wondering if you could do anything about this or tell someone who can. Brilliance 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey Brilliance. Thanks for telling me of this incident with Abu Ali. Like you I was disgusted at his comments. I have since given him a strong warning for the use of those comments. If you or anybody else see him continue to troll (see WP:TROLL) please tell me or another user. May I ask why you decided to come to me on this incident as I have never met you. Cheers Culverin? ^Talk 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing something about it. I came to you because I saw your name on a list of people who can help, and just randomly chose it. Anyways, thanks again. Brilliance 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

And may I ask how you found this message on another user's private talk page? And are you a sockpuppet of another user? Abu ali 12:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reading his talk page because he had made strange revisions on an article I had read. This is when I read the odd message that you wrote to him. I'd appreciate it if no more of these kind of comments were made. Brilliance 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I have removed my warning as you seem to have retracted your accusation that I was encouraging suicide bombing. I hope your future edits are constructive and free of unnecessary conflict Abu ali 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important lesson to learn from all of this is to assume good faith. None of this would have happened had Abu ali's words been taken at face value. Chovain^(t|c) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliance, in regard to your latest message on Abu ali's page: How is he not "authorised" to leave the above warning? Are you able to quote a policy on that? You compared him with an "Islamic dictator", and baselessly claimed that he condoned suicide bombing. How is that not a personal attack? Your comment triggered a multi-editor conflict that I've spent many hours over the past few days trying to clean up. I suggest you accept the level-2 warning, and move on, or I assure you this will end up at RfC, where I imagine you will likely learn that level-2 warnings are not really that bad. Chovain^(t|c) 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If user brilliance is warned for not being civil than Abu desereves a warning too! Abu is being just as rude! Both of you please back down! Brilliance why did you leave the warning on Chovains talk page? What did he do? He is really angry with your actions. He is considering WP:RFC I think. If you have problems, state them to me or write them on the talk page in question. Please dont do anything irresponsible like that. Do you have any ideas on a resolution? Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 09:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali does have a warning on his page - it's just a hand-written warning reminding him not to make edits that may offend people, or that are not conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia.

I was considering WP:RFC on all three of you, not a WP:CHECKUSER, but I'd now rather see this issue go away. The comment that was offending people is now gone. The accusation that Abu ali's comment was racist has been replaced with a more appropriate warning (he wasn't being racist). The unfounded comparison between Abu ali and an islamic dictator, and the assertion that his goal is to kill people is still on his page, as is Abu's reminder to Brilliance against making such personal attacks. Can we please let this go? An RFC is likely to hurt all 3 of you. Chovain^(t|c) 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would apreciate it if the warning from Abu ali is removed. I did something much smaller than what Abu ali did, yet he recieved a small hand written one, while I got this one. I would like it to be removed and then this conflict will be resolved. I will be out of town until Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I have removed the message that I wrote. I except the warning to be removed. I shall return on Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

AOE3

Do you play AOE3 online? (ESO) Whats your favorite faction? I have a variety of favorite factions; England, portugual and the ottomans. The ottomans are great for rushing. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used to play it online. I liked the French for normal games and the Dutch for no rush games. I also liked England for Deathmatch games. Brilliance 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Tip

Please remember to an indent every time you reply. Also when you respond to a message you don't have to write response. Just signing it is enough. Have you considered going for wiki adoption, WP:ADOPT wiki adoption is a great way for new users to learn about wikipedia. Cheers Culverin? ^Talk 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Do you still play ESO?

Yes thank you, I do forget to indent sometimes. About the Response thing, I decided to organize my talk page like that, but now i see that it is just a hassle. I'll think about wiki adoption. Brilliance 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

PS: I don't play it much now, but i do play a game once a month or so.

Welcome to the AMA!

Welcome to the AMA - it's good to have you onboard :-). As part of our plans to ensure that those requesting help get what they need, and to soften the learning curve, we ask new advocates, like yourself, to take an account in tandem with a more experienced Wikipedia advocate. This can help you to get a better understanding of policy and how to deal with the difficult people we sometimes have to deal with. When you're ready to take a case, will you let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to either find a case with an advocate willing to co-advocate with you, or you can choose a case, and I'll find another advocate to fit it (if this makes sense!). Best of luck, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adultery

Hi,

I see you re-added the POV tag. I was curious as to your view on that, as I was the one who claimed the article was not POV, and then removed the tag when another editor recently compromised by putting both view in the article. I know I have not closed the RfC, because I hope that other clear minded people will comment. If you have re-added the tag, then I assume you must have some reason for feeling that way. If you could comment in the article talk page to give a view on what that is, then we have an opportunity to address it. Frequently, with many other articles I edit, if someone drops a POV tag in without any comment, then I usually remove it. In this article, I think it is understandably confusing with the disruptions that one of the editors had been causing, up to recently. I do feel that there should be some discussion about due weight of the two views, as the one (historical) view is hardly mentioned. Thanks, Atom 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Please see Talk:Jerusalem#Brilliance's edit. -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliance, could you please explain on Talk:Jerusalem the purpose of the edit? The sentence was sourced, and as tariq explains, seemed to belong in context. The section as a whole looks balanced to me, so I don't see the problem. In general it is not good to remove sourced sentences without a solid reason, so we would like to hear your reasoning. Tariq and other people are working hard to improve the article to meet FA criteria. nadav 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you an AMA member?

Are you an WP:AMA or WP:AMAT member? Please consider placing your name on the list. --CyclePat 04:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Smoky Hill

If you don't mind my asking. What year are you at Smoky? Nothing personal, I just wanna know who else from the school edits.

Your edits to Cognitive map and Mexican Drug War

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Crusio (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)