User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/June

BLP-recently deceased

I'm pretty certain I saw this somewhere, but must admit that I now don't remember where any more... Feel free to revert, although somehow it does seem to make sense to me. But I lack the time now to do a comprehensive "policy search"... :-) --Crusio (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. WP is not paying much these days :) To tell you the truth, However, I'm not sure how much sense it makes, and that's why your edit kinda jumped out at me. From what I understand, the rationale behind the WP:BLP policy is libel, which strictly depends on life and death. There's no extra two weeks or so thrown into the deal.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, I read the BLP policy and it doesn't say anything about "recently deceased". No clue where I got that bit... I'll revert. Cheers. --Crusio (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

well, why don't...

you just take leave for 8-laid on this sides?

you don't support Wiki at all, and you treat others as if they are the ones engaging in POV-pushing, when you know very well that you and others like only want to "portray" Israel side of the story.*and not only that, even worse, you also prevent saying anything else but Israe's POV). That is not what Wiki is for. That Wiki has become important, doesn't mean is another avenue for you and others like you(almost all of you) to push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Wikipedia, and take the others with you. Cryptonio (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

uhh, dee dee dee, the number you have called is no longer in service. please hang up and do not call again. so that the archiver catches this, adding a sig Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'm embarrassed to confess that I had failed to notice the lovely barnstar that you placed on my talk page a few days back. Like you, I have been "on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses," and that barnstar showed up in mid-talkpage early in a multi-day period when I ended up being without internet access. Since then, I've been making only very brief visits, mostly to my watchlist...

I thank you for the recognition -- particularly because you are someone whose contributions I appreciate when I run across them (as has happened in various seemingly random corners of Wikipedia).

I am dismayed to see the continuing contention over Palestinian Land Laws. I've mostly stayed away from it, but when I noticed the wording that effectively accused the PA of involvement in murders I felt the need to flag that section (to match the previous already-flagged section), mostly to alert readers that this part of the article is also immersed in the fog of ongoing discussion. I know it will be a good article when the fog finally clears... --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Indeed, in my interactions with you in the random corners of Wikipedia you have gained my admiration (for what it's worth). I was quite surprised when you added the POV template to the article, especially before there were any attempts at editing or discussion at the talkpage. It just didn't seem like your type. All the Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dont think it has been too contentious, we havent called each other idiot or moron yet. I think for the most part it has been a relatively calm discussion. Hope all is well with you brew, Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, moron :) The discussion has been nothing less then a love fest.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

cmon man, im at work cant be clicking on that. bad enough i take up all the bandwith refreshing my watchlist. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly you. You should work for CAMERA instead of Electronic Intifada. The infidels allow kinds of porn-viewing at work.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They might make me sell my patch of land though, and we know the consequences of that. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the de-trolling. Btw, I did not know Egypt has a similar law against land sales. It gives me an idea for an article.............--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Egypt has a similar law? I am almost certain that is not true, Judaism is a 'protected' recognized religion, along with Islam and Christianity, in Egypt, and while there were (and in places still are) times where that protection was not actually given, such a law would be in violation of the Egyptian constitution. There are laws on foreign ownership, those have been relaxed in the past 15-20 years, but as far as I know no law governing private sales between citizens that single out one religious group. Nableezy (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

off topic, but best edit ever, shame it counts as vandalism. Truth really should be a defense against such reversions. Nableezy (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was saying it in jest. You're an Egyptian claiming to be worried about land sale prohibitions :) Anyway, unlike in I-P artilces, sports related articles have a tendency to attract funny and cute vandals. At one point I was "collecting" them. Check out: [1][2][3][4].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New article

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations. Your comments and contributions, and for that matter, those of all the squatters on your talk page, are welcome. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks very good, JDE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your Wikignome-y edits were helpful and much appreciated. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worth trying to get it into DYK? (Sorry about your recent negative experience in that area, by the way). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of nomming it but my nom would probably hurt its chances. I guess it doesn't hurt of you nom the artilce, but the partisans out there are watching everything and all it takes is one email.........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Juan Cole

You're not telling me that comments such as:

"I’m not only still pretty sure you are embarrassed, I’m very much hoping you are.", "I think, possibly, you are embarrassed at having been wrong on nearly every point you've made, and are now lashing out at me, why I do not know.", "Sigh", "Stop it", "you seem to want a fight and nothing more", "your comment would seem to indicate that you do pay attention to comments on this page. Unfortunately, that is all it indicates.", "I think both you and WP would be well served by your taking this page off your watchlist", "if you felt like you wanted to stop posting to this thread, it might be a good thing", "My hope was that, embarrassed that you could to do so, you would move on", "I was saying you might well be embarrassed. I was only saying it because that would be a natural way for you to feel in this situation."...

are not all personal attacks, are you? IronDuke has been uniformly combative and hostile from the beginning onwards. I would also appropriate that you refrain from treating me and Sloat as the same person, as we are not.

Yes, you can point to comments made by me that quite unhelpful. I fought mud-slinging with mud-slinging. To that, I wish I would have worded things differently and I apologize to him for that. But for you to take IronDuke's side 100% without any fairness or impartiality... why? How can you not criticize statements like those quoted above? The Squicks (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that IronDuke was perfect but my comment was taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances; who started and who was baited, the level of incivility, and the fact that one side was effective a tag-team and the other was standing alone. IronDuke was certainty not "uniformly combative and hostile." I also did not intend to lump you together with that other user, whose comments are clearly more problematic. In any case, my comments don't make or break anything and my intention was to dial down the drama not vice versa. I have been impressed with your work at WP, especially at I-P pages, and know that it is far below your editing caliber to be involved in this type of stuff. Best and Happy Editing, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But you've taken a side. That by definition plays up the drama and makes it a bigger issue. The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And your insistence of treating me and Sloat as the same (effective a tag-team [??????] ) is baffling to me. You know me. You know that I have most likely never edited something with Sloat before in my entire life- why would we form some kind of team with the goal of besmirching Wikipedia?

As far as 'who started it' and 'who was meaner' goes, I cannot see why IronDuke gets a free pass here. Seriously, look at what I just accurately quoted above. The Squicks (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Props

Despite a few concerns at the DYK review, you did do a good job at presenting this topic in a mostly balanced light. I believe, more eyes and a DYK would have been the natural next step at moving it even further but that is the wiki-life where some articles pass easier than others regardless of quality and balance. Personally, I'd choose this phrasing for the DYK:

"... that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has to sign off on each verdict where Palestinians are found in violation of the Palestinian Land Laws?"

Thought you deserved some props for tackling this topic which deserved an article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jaak. I just returned from RL not expecting much success in the DYK nom. After witnessing the political hackjob disguised as an arbitration hearing, frankly nothing surprises me any more. What's clear at this point is that editors must dodge political bullets while editing. Although the DYK ultimately failed, the discussion at the talkpage was more beneficial to WP then the article appearing on the front page. Now we know which editors are only interested in objective fidelity to reliable sources and which editors (and their enablers) are only interested in an encyclopedia consistent with their political views. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer! Thank you for the article and I'm very sorry that it didn't get promoted :( I have been a little busy with fruitless discussions and off-wiki work, but I know what it's like to write a controversial I–P article, and you did a very good job. Maybe next time you will have better luck at DYK. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was totally unaware that there were such laws. Perhaps I've become too dependent on media that fails to even remotely mention these obstacles during annual "campaigns" for peace. anyways, thanks for the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'Cryptonio' issue

Don't know if to thank you for reverting him once or not - after all you don't like POV pushers, do you? and I am not exactly NPOV in the I-P world. Anyway, thanks for dropping by in the 'Gaza War' article, each visit there by anyone who is not Cryptonio is blessed. Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

uggh thanks for making me look like the biggest edit warrior of all here, listing every revert I made. Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm so busted. How did you figure out that I was really trying to get you blocked? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It said so in the protocols. clearly a joke Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it came down from the high command, User:Wikifan12345. lol. Btw, do you have an alibi for this incident? Kidding, dude. Too bad you had to go to Cairo a few weeks ago. You could have gotten free lift from your fellow Cairo-traveling Chicagoan.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Respect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help re the civ issues. It's easy to feel start feeling beleaguered... much appreciated. IronDuke 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was impressed by your relative restraint in the face of that barrage. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Username

Thanks for the comments about my username. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know if the drama continues at anther forum. I'd like to "comment" there as well. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re-opened re: Interesting Facts section

With regard to removing the Interesting facts section of Monticello, New York, I have re-started the discussion on the talk page if you'd like to comment. --JBC3 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me and thanks for re-initiating the discussion. I've come across some sensitive editors in my WP-travels but that one takes the cake :) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bristol Palin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bristol Palin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

She's not noteworthy. She's only famous for bein' the "knocked-up daughter" of a former Vice-Presidential Candidate.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Crash Underride 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN notifications

Yes, of course. What would you like credit for? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 12:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Now done, thanks. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

you awful vandal you

I mean how dare you! :p Maybe going this weekend. Not sure yet StarM 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)