User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2011/May

Not just for the heck of it
Hi Brew. Re this edit I wasn't just trying to be ornery. There were concerns on Andres' talk page about his use of flag icons that seemed valid to me. I don't care very much about the issue, and don't mind admitting that I was probably also motivated partly by the informal principal that when someone is blocked they shouldn't have the "reward" of having edits made while socking "stick", if you follow me. ( I absolutely loathe socking: I think any editor who resorts to it should be permanently banned on the first offense, so perhaps that made me just a bit more aggressive than another person would be, too. ) Anyway, if I hadn't already seen the cautions on his talk, I probably wouldn't have reverted. No reply necessary, unless you just feel like it, but if you do, you can reply here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong with the edit?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a several objections, as I recall, none of them vehement. One I indicated above: I have, for example, seen people going back into talk page archives to strike every comment a block-evading sock account has made; I think my response just on the basis of block evasion was pretty moderate by comparison. But re the actual substance, my prinicpal concern was that my admittedly brief investigation ( mostly reading the web site that the image derives from ) didn't give me any reason to believe that the organization that calls itself "Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine" has adopted this or any other flag.


 * Additionally, I remember questioning whether, even if it had, it was appropriate to display a flag for a non-State organization, especially one that I doubted many people who don't read in Mideast Studies would be familiar with. Too, the development (iterations) of the image file led me to believe that a considerable degree of original research had been involved in its production. Also, I shared the concerns voiced by others on Andres' talk page that an image that wasn't already well known and recognizable at full size to most readers, would be essentially useless as an aid to understanding when presented in so tiny a format, the more so because of it's use of a non-English script on its face. You're welcome to answer these point, if you like, of course, but I don't care enough about the issue one way or the other to investigate further, or take further action re edits like that. If it needs to be dealt with en masse, I'm happy to leave that to editors who are already more informed concerning the issue than I am. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Striking a comment that can be read anyway is not the same as removing constructive edits. I still fail to see what exactly was wrong with the edits that they had to be reverted. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I gather that you think my reasons insufficient. That's your perfect right, of course, but I wasn't trying to convince you with them. I was merely explaining them, as a small courtesy. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the accusations you launched as me as well as your whitewash revert.
Why have you edited the article in relation to the previous users wishes? How is al-jazzeera English "but a mishmash of plagarism, bad grammar, and POV-laden language using a POV-ish source"? On what evidence do you have of any of this? If it is a grammar problem then fix the problem instead of lending a hand in reverting the entire offering. What is pov in any of what I contributed? These are terms in al-jazeera English as well as internationally recognized terms that are used. Please use the talk page of the Palestine Papers instead of 11 minute reverting my edits after another user did the same thing within 5 minutes of my first one. Try to discuss it out instead of trying to create a revert war with false and misleading remarks.

I want you to provide me with evidence of all that you claimed for your revert asap. Thanks.

PS: Speaking of grammar, it's spelled "plagiarism" fyi. --General Choomin (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but
I don't mind your removing my notice, but ...

My point was that sarcasm etc. has already occurred. The recent creation of a duplicate page is probably not consistent with policy, either, and highly provocative, imho.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What duplicate page?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now. Yes, that is problematic, but I suspect it was a simple oversight and will be resolved shortly.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)y
 * I should have known better than to suggest a name change or hoped to contribute to an article related to the Neighborhood Bully. Things are probably worse on Swedish Wikipedia. Sigh, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth
Hello. Back in 2008, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article at Articles for deletion/S. R. Sidarth. I believe he is still non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion of Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation
Hi Brewcrewer! I requested the article to be deleted again, as it it was created by a the sock of a banned user. (SPI) and not much have been changed since his last contribution. Basically, what has changed is that a section was remove (see diff here). Contest the speedy deletion by pressing the button on the article page header. Happy editing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain flotilla
Hi Brewcrewer,

If you look through the discussion of the Gaza flotilla article you will note that the See Also section has been contentious and had many things added and removed repeatedly. There in fact were many other "flotillas" that were removed including an "aid flotilla from Israel to the "oppressed Kurds" of Turkey" which was a direct response to the Gaza flotilla.

The consensus has been to keep the article and the see also/outside links sections highly focused since it is so easy for things to get out of control with middle east politics and people trying to make connections to things.

In this case the "Bahrain Flotilla" seems to be part of a PR campaign sponsored by the Iranian government. It has no relation to the events of May 31, 2010.

I will not undo your change, but you might consider reverting it yourself, or at least providing support for your reasoning in the discussion section.

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hadn't noticed the prior discussions. Not a terribly big deal either way and I'm just not going to debate a See also link. If you want to revert, be my guest. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for clearing that nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Holocaust victims by occupation
Category:Holocaust victims by occupation, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Actors who died in the Holocaust
Category:Actors who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Composers who died in the Holocaust
Category:Composers who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Historians who died in Nazi concentration camps
Category:Historians who died in Nazi concentration camps, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Musicians who died in the Holocaust
Category:Musicians who died in the Holocaust,which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Poets who died in the Holocaust
Category:Poets who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Scientists who died in the Holocaust
Category:Scientists who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songwriters who died in the Holocaust
Category:Songwriters who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Violinists who died in the Holocaust
Category:Violinists who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for discussion by User. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry ?
You left a message on my talk page asking if I "ever open[ed] up a second account under Tovaroboyle" The answer is NO. The evidence you offered for suspecting a possible connection seems to amount to the following: Both of us have asserted that- some editors editing in the Arab Israeli conflict field, have biased/tribalistic agendas. Well surprise surprise, I don't think either of us are the first (or will be the last) to make such a blindingly obvious observation. Thanks for your kindly, sincere. and unbiased interest in my career though. Prunesqualer (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You either have a second account or login to your topic banned account just to see the fireworks. I doubt the later since you seem to come up just too often while not having other edits. I assume you have pages watchlisted and switch to your "bad" account when inclined. The only reason I second guess it is because you should have figured out how to get unbanned by now if you were editing consistently. It really isn't that hard and it has been explained to you. Either way, you continue to make little jabs in your comments that prove that you are not ready. I can go into more detail if you want in an effort to assist in your unban but I expect more quasi passive aggressive offensiveness instead. 01:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, let's be honest here, Tovaroboyle is clearly a sockpuppet, new users obviously don't make edits like that, and the probability of you being the sockmaster is high given the context. That seems reasonable to me. If it is the case that you used sockpuppetry please just be honest about it, say so, and take the consequences.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I say admit to it or else we have enough reasoning to go to COI. A COI would result in you not returning in any reasonable amount of time and your style is now known by a couple editors so any sockpuppetry would be easy to stamp out. If you are socking: Fess up, apologize, show an effort on other topics, stop pushing peoples buttons and screaming about bias and see WP:OFFER. Of course, I wouldn;t be shocked if PS is not the sockmaster but just a sock of another sock. Play by the rules and everything will be easier and less drama. Or continue to be rude and be shunned. I have found being shunned kind of sucks but it is nice still being able to edit for not crossing certain lines.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Prune. Heh. I have been accused of lots of things, but never "quasi passive aggressive offensiveness." I like that one. As for your vague/confusing counter-accusations, I don't edit as frequently as I used to because I now have more real life responsibilities. Which sucks -- hanging out on WP all day is far more fun. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Prehaps the editing environment, around the Israel/Arab aria, would be less poisonous if editors had to face consequences for making unfounded allegations. I suspect that some of you guys have noted my wish to return to editing in the I/A field and are simply mud slinging and provoking me in order to prevent this happening. I have never sockpuppeted in my life. The evidence offered by brewcaster which he uses to imply a connection between me and Tovaroboyle is circumstantial and tendentious to the point of being laughable. Kindly go boil your heads you silly people. Prunesqualer (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing poisonous or provocative about telling someone that they look like a sockpuppet and asking them whether they are a sockpuppet. In the majority of cases where this occurs in the I-P topic area the editor turns out to be a sockpuppet. That is just how it is. If anyone can do anything at all to help reduce it they should do so including simply admitting that they used an alternative account so that it can be blocked. You say you are not connected to Tovaroboyle, fine. If someone wants to take it to WP:SPI they can.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Brewcaster. Now hang on one cotton pick’n’ minute. You said " There's nothing poisonous or provocative about telling someone that they look like a sockpuppet and asking them whether they are a sockpuppet". That may be true (although I find the timing of your insinuation - months after the event - and just as I show an interest in re-entering the A/I field rather suspect) but one of the above remarks addressed to me (by someone who hasn't even signed his/her post) was: "I assume you have pages watchlisted and switch to your "bad" account when inclined". This goes way beyond  asking me whether I am a sockpuppet. The repeated calls for me to admit to something, that I am not guilty of, are also offensive. And as for Cptnono saying "Or continue to be rude…" that takes the biscuit coming from a man who used the following language on Wiki "If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you" and "So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick." And "Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned". In short the remarks directed against me here are both "Poisonous" and "Provocative". Prunesqualer (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To whom are your comments addressed and whose comments do you take issue with? You are way confused.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @brewcrewer. This is all rather tiresome but here goes: I used of the words "Poisonous" and "Provocative" in my  09:47 12 May post. Those references where not necessarily directed at you. However you quoted the words back to me in your 10:21 post in a way that suggested that they WHERE directed at you (ie you seemed to be rebutting accusations which where not necessarily directed at you). My 21:21 post corrected you on this and, I think, made it abundantly clear who WAS being "Poisonous" and "Provocative". I also made the point that the timing of this whole nonsense has stretched my ability to assume good faith (indeed why should I assume good faith when non of your chums are assuming good faith on my part). Thanks for the “way confused” remark by the way Prunesqualer (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Check again.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this. Stop discussing the I/P topic area or this is going to AE. You are banned. Get out. Shoot me an email if you want some criticism and suggestions on how to return.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Cptnono. You really are quite a customer old son. I have been accused of sockpuppetry in the I/P field, yet you would have me avoid even tangential mention of that subject when defending myself. I find it highly inappropriate that the person most instrumental in getting me banned in the first place (you) wades in here (repeatedly) with threats and insinuations.

@brewcrewer. You said: "Wrong" Could you be more specific? What am I wrong about? Prunesqualer (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think by "wrong", Brewcrewer probably just means that he and I are not the same person and that you are attributing comments to him that I made. Since Brewcrewer is an advocate for the facist Zionist entity and its brutal occupation forces whereas I am a facilitator of Islamofacist antisemitic marxist pro-Palestinian delegitimization propaganda we aren't often confused...I may be oversimplfying the descriptions but there are probably blogs on the interwebs somewhere to support those characterizations. I think Cptnono is right about you not being to discuss the I/P topic though. As for sockpuppetry, if someone files a SPI report you can defend yourself there if you want.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I better get my raise now.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 11:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Sean.Hoyland & brewcrewer- Oops. I see what you mean. I shall have to more diligently keep track of who is saying what. Sorry for the confusion caused. Prunesqualer (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ brewcrewer. Not wishing to venture too far into point scoring land (my own fallibility credentials are now firmly established), but look at your own comment: 03:20, 12 May (before my mix up) . You confused cptnono's remarks with mine. Though athiest/agnostic I have for a long time believed in a very loose form of karma. Occasionally such blatant ironies make me wonder though. Prunesqualer (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator review
This message is to inform you that your name has been mentioned at an administrator review due to one particular edit at the articles. This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regards, betsythedevine (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation
FYI. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see
Please see Template_talk:Jewish_and_Israeli_holidays. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)