User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2010/August

Twinkle
I had commented at that IPs page before and noticed your warning. I think you know that this edit is not vandalism and that using Twinkle in such a way can lead to it being disabled for your account.  nableezy  - 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"White supremecy forums"
To question my motives for warning IronDuke is more of the same attitude, IMO, he was expressing in that NPA. Brewcrew, to mention "white supremecy forums" and then ask how I knew about the article is dirty pool. Don't do it. Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Brew brings up a perfectly legitimate point -- the article you wandered randomly (or not so randomly) into is a magnet for all sorts of nastiness. And it certainly isn't Brew's fault if you are too embarrassed or frightened to say how you came to the article and my talk page. IronDuke  04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But let's try and keep this discussion centralized, no? My talk page is a fine place for it. IronDuke  04:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Aleksander Laak
If you really want to contribute to the article on Aleksander Laak I suggest you start by finding out about Gertrud. Until you know how the two were related I will safely assume you know nothing of the subject. If however you decide to work on this or on the Holocaust in Estonia in general I will be glad to help you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a better way
The difficulty, as I see it, is that it's too easy to get trolled or baited into an edit war by a throwaway IP adress. But yet, I see no clear path to getting the situation settled. I should, I've been here long enough, but I don't. Any ideas? IronDuke 02:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is ANI, but I just hate its time consuming nature. Maybe later, when I return from this real life comedy show I'm being dragged to right now. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with ANI is it's a crapshoot. You can get a thoughtful reply, or you can get someone pushing an agenda, or people just looking for lulz. It's depressing; a series of numbers can disrupt legitimate editing all too easily. IronDuke  02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See, Ironduke, I don't get this. What's so wrong with being a 'series of numbers'? I saw on your talk page that this is a bit of a thing with you, a bit of IP hate. I can attest to the fact that people who have named accounts can just as easily disrupt honest and worthwhile editing as an IP can. And why wouldn't you expect that to be the case? There is no quality control that comes from signing up for a username. What is it that makes having a username so special to you? The only qualifications required for having a username or an IP account is that one has access to the internet -- that's it! I could easily get a username -- I haven't cos I don't see the point (except to satisfy you and your irrational hate), but I would still be the same person with the same qualifications (that qualification being what it is for every editor on wikipedia, having access to the internet). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [And before you accuse me of following you around, I left a message on Brewcrewer's page and came here to see if he had responded. I happened to see you talking about me here, so I responded; but the only reason I saw it is because you posted here just an hour or so after me. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)]

Re: Fosh
Hi Brewcrewer! It is written and pronounced Fosh (or FOSH). For a pronunciation example, you can view this video. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War
I will certainly "analyze specifically", but you should consider self-reverting. An odd definition of a 1RR is in place on that article, which is If someone adds something and that change is reverted and someone, ANYONE puts it back in, that's a 1RR violation. See Talk:Six-Day_War.  nableezy  - 05:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Six-Day War, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. There is a 1RR rule in effect for this article, I corrected it. You reverted my correction enforcing the rule. Please review the article's talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

 * fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisadespkwy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Palestine Regiment
Hi Brewcrewer! The book Jewish Palestinian Volunteering in the British Army During the Second World War, Vol. 2 (Yoav Gelver0, which I possess, almost certainly has the information you are looking for, but it is a heavy volume where it is hard to find anything useful. For my part, I have not found anything. Who commanded the regiment? It might help me find information about it. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm currently limited to Google Books, but maybe later I'll have more access to offline stuff. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank
Perhaps you could advise exactly where it says in that quote that the episode was anti-semitic as I cannot read that into it anywhere…? Instead of saying simply 'it does say that' it would be more helpful to confirm exactly where it says so. To me - and I am a lawyer so I am qualified to interpret things of this nature - it clearly says that there was a lot of anti-semitic feeling at the time, and such comments were made in the press. In addition, there was much to say about the fact that Frank was a Jew. However, nowhere does it say that the whole episode (the lynching etc) was due to this; it was, if you like, an ancillary issue existing alongside the real issue, but not part of it. The very first comment refers, in fact. I feel that this quote has been mis-understood. Please stop entering into an edit war about this and see it for what it actually is. I get the impression you have forced the issue to fit into a preconceived idea about the episode. 78.150.21.193 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the one that added the footnote. I have now expanded the footnote to include specific language that reiterates the obvious.  Please note that simply because some specific info is included in the footnote, this does not imply that this is all the source had to say about it.  Youreally should go to the actual source (or at least ask about it) before you start reverting.  There has been a long discussion on the page about anti-Semitism and no consensus for removing the reference was reached. I am copying this entire conversation to the article discussion page where it is more appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD Formatting
I have been debating at AfD for many years and have seen reformats occur regularly when the content becomes unruly and devolves toward a stream of consciousness discussion rules by two or three editors. Having a disorganized debate at Afd, I feel, hurts the ability of new voices to enter the discussion. If there has been a change or a specific policy about organizing AfD threads has been formed, please reference it to me. I will continue to organize such articles, barring your comments, as you have requested not to be moved, when or if they become unruly again. If you would care to debate this please involve a third party.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:TPO.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. The section relevant to this discussion are Refactoring for relevance,Fixing format errors and Fixing layout errors. Please see Refactoring talk pages--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may be correct. I have found a conflicting policy at WP:AFDEQ. I've seen it done so often in the past that I believed it to be accepted. I can see how a refactoring in this context could assume the structure of a vote.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid
Nicely played. You could have just asked for move protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually always categorize redirects. Here's one, for example in the last few days. If you're bored you can look through my edit history, but if you're not interested it would only be fair that you assume good faith. Btw, how did you notice that? Did you try to move it back?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about bad faith. I noticed the edit because the move added the redirect to my watchlist.
 * For what it's worth, if somebody had moved the article again, I would have moved it back and asked for move protection until the matter is resolved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Article about the West Bank
Hello, Please not that the user with the IP 209.118.181.16 re-reverted the edits I have made (and explained), which you approved (by rejecting his previous revert). I don't know how exactly things are done here. All I know is that I gave reasonable explanations to my edits, and I hate to see inaccuracies in subjects about which people talk a lot, but too often disinformed. Also, could you explain to me why I am being threatened like that by Nableezy? User talk:79.181.9.231 79.181.9.231 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The harassment is resolved by ignoring it or by telling them to bring their concerns to Sockpuppet investigations, if they think you are returning as a previously banned editor. If that doesn't work you can do this, because it is your talk page.
 * As for the content concerns you raise, that is more difficult. There is nothing that can be done except hope that a neutral editor agrees with you. That way there will be a wp:consensus to your version, which is the way disagreements are supposed to be involved. in any case, please don't get disheartened by bullshit, because there is lots of it here at Wikipedia.
 * If you have any more questions, please let me know. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)