User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2012/March

Kornberg
Google showed that he is indeed Jeweish, but in the article about him, not a word is spent on him being Jewish. Night of the Big Wind talk  02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the other one you removed was also easily found on The Google. Please check next time before removing. Thanks.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If people are labeled for their religion, it should be stated in their article. Night of the Big Wind  talk  02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Honest reporting
Saying that an organisation is pro-Israel is different from saying that it "monitors the media for what it perceives as bias against Israel."

A neutral organisation could monitor what it perceives as bias against Israel. Honest reporting is not neutral, it is pro-Israel per RS. This is an important distinction because what a neutral organisation "perceives as bias" and what a pro-Israel organisation "perceives as bias" are two different things. Dlv999 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * you're hairsplitting and that's why you turned a normal sentence to a long and redundant sentence. if you want to discuss further go to the article talk page, not here. Its on my watchlist. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Deeply appreciated that gentlemanly courtesy at Silwan. If you see a sock identifiable as someone on 'my side' doing something similar, don't hesitate to drop me a note, if you've used up your reverts. None of this should tolerate this crap, and it's something we can I think agree on. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I wouldn't be courteous towards you, but the revert was more for my own benefit. I look bad when I have an obvious sock following me around to every dispute I am involved with to revert to my preferred version. The stupid sock gains nothing from this nonsense (s/he will eventually be reverted and blocked) except to make me look like conniving trickster working behind the scenes to get a revert. Unless of course that is the sock's intention? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a courtesy towards the page, and what should be good practice by all, in any case. I don't think we should overworry the meta-meta-games. Sticking to a principle that any blow-in's revert, irrespective of cui prodest, should oblige established editors to revert to the last version, would be ideal. I don't follow wiki much these days, that's why I asked you to tip me off if some idiot on the other side is causing similar trouble, and someone's needed to revert it. Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * +1
 * I have worked half an hour to find a source for the information but could not find this. Else, I would have re-inserted the information with an equivalent comment as yours.
 * When we will all succeed in wp:writing for the opponent, wikipedia will be a success.
 * 81.247.214.96 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * there are plenty of editors already "writing for the opponent" for one side of this dispute, and that's exactly why Wikipedia is not a success.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)