User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2011/March

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brewcrewer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Having disagreed with you once months ago does not preclude a user from ever editing an article to which you have made minor contributions. Please stop making unsubstantiated accusations, which constitute personal attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were you I would self revert. Someone may decide to take you to the AE or 3rr Noticeboard for breaking the 1rr rule as applied to I-A articles. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't threaten other users in order to keep an article in your preferred state. That's probably more likely to draw censure than non-violation of 1RR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to be nice and notify you of the rules lest you get blindsided by a noticeboard. You really can do whatever you want. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'll assume that you're just unfamiliar with the sanctions on IP articles. Here's how they work: a revert is "any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Having reverted once would violate 0RR, not 1RR. But IP articles are under 1RR, not 0RR. If you reverted me, that would violate 1RR. But so far, no one has broken any rules. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm. wikilawering around edit-warring in spirit is not much of an improvement. it's really unfortunate that the problems raised regarding your behavior on numerous noticeboards does not appear to have changed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Brewcrewer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your personal attacks and threats. Thank you. --Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For your encouragement & welcome. Cheers 110.33.232.78 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no probs.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer, I wrote an article Stoning murder of Israeli teens. I've already asked user:Gatoclass to help me to make it DYK ready, but just in case he's busy, may I please ask you to take a look on it too? Thanks for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

looks a nice article though i think the bio and the event should be merged.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you only trying to document victims, or would you like to compile a list of survivors as well?Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm focused on people that died.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

hope all is well. Let's go Yankees :-) PS: Baseball thread on my user talk requiring your attention StarM 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

hey :) I'll stop by later :) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi my friend if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just saying that all of the editors that keep changing's Gilad's status to "abducted" are Jewish. If you look at their other edits, you can see that they are in articles about stuff in Israel. I didn't mean to look racist. Sorry about that. The other editor called me a bastard. He started it. Anyway, the point is Gilad is a soldier. He's not a civilian. He was captured in a tank in battle. Does he deserve to rot in captivity? Of course not. --189.17.136.67 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which editor called you a bastard?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rpdant767 called me and other editors bastards[1]

He's clearly biased. He complains about the Red Cross not being allowed to visit Gilad. I honestly don't understand. I've added news articles that use the word "captured". Yet that's not good enough. --189.17.136.67 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you better cut out the edit warring or your IP address will be blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I suggest you tell Brewcrewer to stop edit warring before you threaten me with a ban. I should have known you were just as biased as him. --189.17.136.67 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell, man? I provide proof that news articles state that Gilad was captured yet you revert them anyway. You really are nothing more than a BIASED Jewish editor. This isn't over. When the page is unlocked, I WILL revert your edits. That I promise you. No less. I have a proxy server. This isn't my real ip address. And spare me your threats. You are not an administrator. You don't have the power to block me. See you in a week. --201.90.134.50 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that difficult to finagle another IP address, but it is far easier for the page to be semi-protected again. My advice to you would be to either collaborate (ceasing to call them names would be a start in that direction) with other editors or perhaps quit obsessing over the mostly-inconsequential terminology in one article. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Half Shadow preemptorally closed discussion; Maunus just re-opened it. I think everyone is looking for a resolution and I think your unblock/topic ban would work. Could you run thaqt by half-shadow or anyone who wishes to close discussion? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see another editor has already commented about the inappropriateness of that close. I will keep on eye on it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think your proposal got overshadowed by tangential discussions. I suspect a lot of discussion posted ater your proposal belongs on the talk page. Admins regularly move inappropriate discussion from mainnspaces to talk pages but I obviously am not neutral here and cannot do it myself ... you may not be either, having made a proposal, but if you know any experienced admins who has NOT participated in the discussion who CAN make fair decisions about what subthreads actually belong on the talk page, could you flag their attention? Someone independent has to make these kinds of decisions and that pretty much means no one I interact with regularly. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinion on this [2]I.Casaubon (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole case has been moved to ArbCom.[3] I never wanted this to be a personal conflict between Noleander and myself. I know you have made valuable contributions to the anti-Semitism article. If you have any suggestions about how one can recognize anti-Semitic texts - in this context, how to distinguish between adding text at WP that is about anti-Semitism, or that is simply poorly-written information about Jews, and actual anti-Semitic writing, I would really appreciate your input. I think this is an issue the community has had a lot of trouble confronting, and I find it hard sometimes to explain effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@I.Casaubon & Slrubenstein. Sorry guys, but RL allows me little WP-time these days.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)