User talk:Greenbrook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but unfortunately it's not really accurate -- 1) I'll try to edit just a little and hope you agree, 2) maybe we should also just eliminate the whole hagiography section on the talk page -- agree?

Once we've reached an agreement, I'd be very willing to wipe that whole discussion clean.

Check-out my latest "barely a footnote" edit, and tell me if it is mutually satisfactory? Thanks!

Just did -- it sounded like the litigation was over the divorce, so I cleaned it up to just reference it. Hope that's ok with you. Let's see what happens -- maybe once the lawsuit is decided there'll be more dirt or fact, whatever, so let's wait and see. Thanks.

Okay... just minor three-word change... restored footnote for proper reference. If you agree, then we're done, and I can move along to writing about Battlestar Galactica.

) -- I really think it should be neutral and general, since it doesn't relate here at all. There's solid reference here to the Redstones and anyone can go to Redstone and get all the dirt there, where it belongs because that's the real subject of the article. A minor reference here is more than enough, so let's drop the footnote and reference and wait and see what happens. Hope you agree.

A minor reference needs to include documentation of the source. In this case, a link to the Variety article. Otherwise, it would just get deleted for not being a documented statement. Let me take a look at the article again.

Okay, how about this. We don't include the article in the external links, but we keep the paragraph as it is now written, complete with a simple footnote.

Deal?

Close, and I want to agree, but the lawsuit is public knowledge and doesn't need any link to document it, especially because it will constantly be changing. I really think the sentence should be neutral or we run big risks in singling out this one minor charge -- why don't we keep it that way and keep an eye on the lawsuit to see where it goes and put in more if and when we've got some facts. Now that I think about we probably also have to say they denie the son's charges. Deal?

What's this business about Bramberg and Haro -- who are they and why do you keep erasing their names after you put them in? What's that all about? I'm trying to get to the bottom of that so we can see what's really going on here.

No idea.

I think we're both better off not dealing with that.

Why? What's going on? What do you know?

Okay... I think you'll agree that we're done. Have a look?

I really feel strongly, and hope you can see it -- it should be neutral and nonspecific, since it's only one tiny side issue in the whole huge lawsuit. So let's drop the footnote to a changing situation, keep it neutral, and then see what happens with the lawsuit. Hope you agree. Thanks. Whew -- hope we're done.

If you agree with my last changes, then we can drop this and I can start my comments on Battlestar Galactica. I'm happy with it the way it is NOW-- with the footnote.

Redstone's son has sued him and his daughter alleging improprieties, including the handling of Korff's severance package, in managing National Amusements, which they deny. [1]

If you want to make it even more neutral:

Redstone's son has sued him and his daughter over several matters regarding the managing National Amusements, and the handling of Korff's severance package. [1]

It doesn't even contain any loaded words. "Over several matters" and "the handling of" is as neutral as it gets. But the footnote has to stay.

C'mon -- who knows the truth about all this, or whether there even was a severance package anyway -- it doesn't deserve mention at all as long as the lawsuit itself is mentioned. Can't we just agree on that until it all comes out and there's more? Thanks.

Why are you so hung up on the footnote? It's a changing story. I took another look -- really look's like just a cheap shot -- let's cut both and let it go. Hope you agree.

The footnote provides a documented source for the information. It's how Wikipedia works. You provide information, you document its source so that others can verify it's true.

Yes, it's a changing story. Wikipedia changes, too. When new information becomes available, you add it to the Wikipedia article, make revisions, and add new footnotes. We're not carving something in stone. Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to contain changing stories. Wikipedia IS ITSELF a changing story.

The facts in question are that Redstone sued and made certain claims. Nobody waits until a court case is settled and all appeals are exhausted before even mentioning that it exists. For one thing, that would put Nancy Grace and Rita Cosby out of business... hey... maybe you're on to something!

Seriously, though. All I am doing is saying that there is a court case about something.

The way it's written now, this is like saying, "Congress is inquiring into several matters regarding G. Gordon Liddy's visit to The Watergate Hotel." [1]

I am satisfied that I have cooperated to the very limit of what I am willing to concede.

If you don't agree, then I'll just pretend to agree to your next demand, wait until you've stopped paying attention, and change it back, (days or weeks later) hoping you won't notice. After that, if you do notice it, I'll just keep changing it back in the middle of the night, every day, until one of us throws themselves under a bus.

In a way, I'm being honest by telling you precisely HOW I'll lie to you.

Thank's for your honesty (I think). I've gone to the limit too, so where does that leave us? Nobody's saying wait until the case is all over and all appeals decided -- just stick to the external facts until we have more than just one side's allegations -- Look at it realistically -- you're reporting there was a break-in, and you're reporting the investigation into Gordon Liddy. Period. That says it all, until someone goes to prison. Here you're reporting that there's a lawsuit, you're reporting what it's about, and that there are allegations of misconduct against Redstone (not against Korff), nothing proven, nothing more is needed until there is more. And besides, this is irrelevant to this article. It's like writing a two sentence article on elephants and then putting in six pages on fleas -- I'm agreeing to at least put in that elephants have fleas -- why do you want to specify what kind of fleas and reference to an article that someone is looking into fleas? Please please can't we just agree. (PS You've also got me really really curious about those names you brought up without explaining -- can't you give me a clue please?) Thanks.

Peace -- (pretty please.) And please clue me in on what you know. Thanks.

I've got plenty of other information to add to the article about Korff. This is just one little factoid-- one sentence. I think that including this one sentence may seem out of place right now, but it's part of a larger context, that I'll be happy to flesh out for you as time goes on.

Are you going to fight me tooth and nail like this when I add a couple sentences to include media reports about what happened when he was chaplain of Deer Island Prison?

And no, I won't engage in rumormongering that invades people's privacy, so I won't give you any hints about a particular tantalizing fact, unless someone publishes it in the open, first.

I'm going to stick to what's reported in the media.

You've budged me as far as I'll go in making a paragraph into the most neutral statement possible. There are no allegations. No bias. "There is a lawsuit about X." Period. Footnote. We're done. Let's both claim victory and move forward.

In any case, this is not my priority, and I'd rather work on some non-korff-related things. Are we done?

I wish we were. But this gets more interesting all the time. What's with you and Korff? What's the Deer Island bit? If it's public anyway what's the scoop? And who are Bumbarger and Harro? If it belongs, then let's hear it. As for this one sentence, if you say its out of place for now, then let's keep it neutral without the footnote. Tell me more.

And I didn't win -- you did. The sentence is in there, but let's leave it at that and not more.

That's fine. But if a third-party deletes it because the statement isn't attributed, the footnote goes back. I still think it's neutral WITH the footnote. Could we put the footnote back if we changed the sentence from:

"Redstone's son has sued him and his daughter over several matters regarding the managing of National Amusements.

To:

"Redstone's son has sought court mediation regarding the managing of National Amusements and Korff's severance package."

And yes, I noticed you deleted the part about the severance package... Grrr.

Eventually, I'll just put the footnote back later when you're not paying attention, anyway.

I'm trying to work with you, but you're not being fair. First, I think it's more accurate to say the son sued since that's not really court mediation or at least doesn't sound like it. Second, I was completely open about deleting the specific about the severance package and the footnote -- we don't know it was a severance package, it's only one small item in the overall lawsuit, etc., etc. -- I don't think any of this should be here in the first place, so why can't you be happy you won and got it in, even if it is without the footnote. I'm fine with revisiting it if a third party deletes it because it's not attributed -- I doubt that will happen since it's public information that's out there. OK? Please let's agree on this and move on.

ALSO - how about filling me in on the other stuff --

What's going on? What happened at Deer Island, where can I see the media reports you refer to? You seem to have a list of things against him -- what's the deal?

Can we call a truce here on the edits and leave it as is, with just the simple statement, for a while, please. And you can't throw out names and hints of bad things without at least explaining some of it, including how you know and how you're involved and why you've made this list of sketchy things about him -- fairs fair -- so, how about it. Thank you.

And I just looked at the articles on the Redstones -- it's there, WITH footnotes etc., so you're three for three -- but what's this reference you made to "Korffgate"? What's the real story? C'mon.

Everything I have is publicly available without the need to invade the privacy of third-parties, including the two you keep insisting on mentioning.

I didn't mention any names until you erased one, put in another, and I asked you about it -- really, waht's going on with that -- is one of them you? Too much mysterie here.

"Korffgate" is just the name for the Redstone lawsuit.

Sounds overblown, no? And why not RedstoneGate -- the lawsuits about the Redstones not about Korff. Sounds like you've got a grudge you're pushing -- care to let me in on it? At least direct me to the stuff you say is publicly available. Have you ever met Rabbi Korff? Maybe we can do some healing, or at least save us both more grief on this issue. Theres gotta be more you're not sharing -- not healthy. Just trying to get to the bottom of it and maybe help.

I'm done for now. I'm going to work on Battlestar Galactica.

Me too -- let's keep in touch.

What's 'nice try' mean? How about some answers to my questions above -- and in the meantime, let's maintain the status quo as it is right now, please -- you won, even if it's not everything you want the sentence is in there, congratulations whatever your agenda is, so let's call it a day and move on please -- still waiting to hear about what else there is that should be in the article from public sources.

In the meantime I'll do some looking on my own.

PS - you realize this has been all day -- I'd like to get off this article and get involved on some others, so can't we just let this go please.

Not done with the research, but I'm beginning to understand what this is all about.

OK Rev. -- I still haven't figured out the Harro piece and some other little things, but I can see what's going on and why it's such a big deal for you to insist on putting in this irrelevant junk the way you do and all the other dirt you say you have. There's obviously a personal history here, and it's not right and the anger and bitterness is not good for anybody. So, my first idea would be to clear up any misunderstandings and make peace -- I don't know if you're Jewish or not, but all religions believe in peace, and I'd get a big mitzvah (good deed). I've been wanting to get in touch with the Rebbe for some time anyway, so how about I clue him in and try to get the two of you together? Nothing to lose -- what do you say? --ChosidFrumBirth 13:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am was just a hairs breadth from giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you have no clue what Wikipedia is actually for. Now, I realize that your issues include that, but run deeper than that. You win. You can have your precious fucking rebbe. Delete whatever the fuck you want. But if I hear from you again, I call the cops.

At first, I thought you saw it as "irrleveant junk" because you wanted the wikipedia article to be just about rabbi-stuff and your personal interests in rabinical history. Wikipedia is NOT about making it what one person wants it to be. There is more to a story than what you want to write.

In any case, it's not worth it.

Go worship your tin god and leave me the fuck alone.

And thank god that wikipedia article are written only by people who care nothing about the subject they're writing about. In fact, every wikipedia article is written by someone who doesn't give a shit about the topic. We're all chosen by lots, to avoid an "agenda."

And thank god this particular article will be the only biography in all of Wikipedia that won't mention any court cases until all appeals are exhausted and the history books are published.

Wow -- well I'll put this on hold and leave you alone for the time being but I'd like to help, think it's healthy, so the offer to make peace for you with the Rebbe stands any time you want to try to clear things up. --ChosidFrumBirth 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)