User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/August

ani

would you mind replacing the word "repugnant" with "tasteless" or something of that nature? nableezy - 05:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Done.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

Could we semi-protect the page? BYT (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

per talk

usually means something is on the talk page. nableezy - 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

nuh-uh, i shocked you??? all i had to do was say i havent accepted that press tv is unreliable (note I didnt say I found it reliable, only that it isnt fringe and that I havent accepted it is unreliable). Though if you wouldn't mind me asking, do you find this to be a reliable source? nableezy - 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be theatrical; you actually did shock me. I thought you fancied yourself as some sort of moderate, and refusing to take a stance on the reliability of PressTV does great harm to any moderate reputation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually fancy myself as an extremist who wants to rule the world (which from then on will just be called Egypt), but I dont think the Press TV position is an extreme position to take. Press TV is useful for a number of things as they cover aspects of certain issues that are largely uncovered in the western media. I dont know that I would call it a reliable source on many things, but everything you brought up was in pieces that were not news articles, they were op-eds reflecting the opinion of the author. But Press TV covers internal matters in Gaza almost as well as al-Jazeera. Really, how do expect to achieve NPOV (representation of all notable viewpoints) if you want to cut out the press from an entire nation? And, again, I never actually said they are a reliable source, I said I havent accepted that they are not. nableezy - 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were you my argument wouldnt be focused around press tv. It would be blp as applied to Netanyahu and Liebermen, basing a negative accusation on the basis of a noted conspiracy theorist. I tell you this because I really dont care about that article or the birther movement or whoever the fuck Orly Taitz is, it is the way a news source that provides valuable information that many western media outlets either gloss over or ignore is being portrayed. nableezy - 05:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

and also, if you were interested in upping your DYK count, an interesting article we could together on is this covering the 1990 law and the 2005 addition. nableezy - 05:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is disappointing that major publications of major countries are as reliable as the Pravda, but that county has been disappointing all of us for a while already. As for the DYK offer, thanks, but I try to avoid Holocaust writing. It gets me too depressed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldnt really be writing on the Holocaust, just on the mandate to teach it at all levels of school. But up to you. nableezy - 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

you know that is 3 reverts right? nableezy - 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that by incorporating your concerns we can now move forward to actually building the article, instead of playing wiki-games. In any case, I'm happy to see that you take edit warring seriously. I'll now look for you to set an ideal example of non-edit warring. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

cmon, you remove exactly one problem and return the rest of them? get off it. I will, by the end of the day (my day, around 2 am monday eastern time), have a detailed listing of all the problems with "your version". OK? nableezy - 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see there's some headway being made towards actual editing, instead of plain good ol' reverting. Surely, the issues and modifications have been incorporated into the later version with more content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer on the talk page. nableezy - 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

advice

Could you have a look at Palestinian right of return and tell me how I deal with these people and their IDONLIKEIT tag-team?
Not asking you to get involved, just some advice. Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Probably depends on which editors you're dealing with. I'll take a look later and see if I can offer more detailed advice. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided to do the more important editing first, then argue about the small details, so it's not so urgent anymore. Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi Brewcrewer. You put something on my page that said if I had a question to see you on your talk page. I was hoping you could help me fix something on the page Irgun. I changed the wording a bit and added a reference for the second sentence in the lede. There is an error around the end of that sentence near where I put the reference and I probably made it but I can't for the life of me figure how to fix it. I wonder if I could impose upon you to take a look at it, when you get a minute? Thanks very much. Stellarkid (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

fixed. nableezy - 04:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I just have to figure out what you did to fix it. Stellarkid (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the "diff". Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

talking about people I know? or that you know? Tiamut^talk 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That we all know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure brew means me. But I gave Tallicfan two notices, he disregarded both. I didn't report him until he was edit-warring against 3 users for a total of 7 reverts. Then he reverted again while the report was open, making 8. You want to call that gaming the system go ahead, but it isnt. nableezy - 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftonbladet

Could I please ask you to start discussing beforing making changes that many users will find both imbalanced and insulting. You consider Aftonbladet antisemitic and you're fully entitled to that view. That is very much a minority view, however. It is not a good paper, but neither is it antisemitic, very far from it. For you to label it as such without being able to read its publications (I suppose) when even its critics in the on-going controvery have stated the opposite looks very much like personal POV-pushing. Please take the time to discuss and gain a consensus before making such changes, no matter how emotionally you feel about it.Jeppiz (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please raise your specific concerns at the article talk page, not here. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted there, please feel free to remove the comments here. CheersJeppiz (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but I do wish you would tone it down a bit in your edit summaries.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I wanted to change that one the minute after I posted it, so my apologies for that. We do not agree here, but I certainly shouldn't get personal and my edit summary was not a good one. You are of course entirely entitled to making the edits you want. My bad. Jeppiz (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Looking forward to collaborating and discussing at the talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)