User talk:Brewcrewer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:48, 19 March 2012 editBrewcrewer (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits →Thanks: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:49, 19 March 2012 edit undoBrewcrewer (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits →Thanks: belated response to ceedjeeNext edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:::When we will all succeed in ], wikipedia will be a success.		:::When we will all succeed in ], wikipedia will be a success.
	:::] (]) 22:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)		:::] (]) 22:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
	::::there are plenty of editors already "writing for the opponent" for one side of this dispute [http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/the-jew-flu-the-strange-illness-of-jewish-anti-semitism-1.267172, and that's exactly why Misplaced Pages is not a success.		::::there are plenty of editors already "writing for the opponent" for one side of this dispute , and that's exactly why Misplaced Pages is not a success.--'']] ]'' 03:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:49, 19 March 2012

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer.

Archives

Wikihounding

Is there a reason why you are wikihounding me and reverting my edits on articles you previously never have edited? Including reverting my tag without explanation or discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Read the discussions before doing anything.--Liopaiopsm (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages is not a success.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)