I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:33
Another advert. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay has recently nominated for deletion. I thought I should let you know because you edited the article quite a bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I know, dont think the last one was a revert, kept in the extra info and brought the weight down, if you think it is i will self revert, let me know. (and really, welcome back) Nableezy (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and if you wanted to get in that AfD for the game 6 article, its Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, but in all seriousness let me know what you think of it Nableezy (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert at 3rr, but as far as I know it's any revert, it doesn't have to be the same full revert at each turn. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe, if somebody wants to report they can, wouldnt mind taking an enforced break for a while. honestly, kind of happy you back in the fray, i dont mind discussing, even arguing, as long is it isnt with irrational people. Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean by an afd for that basketball game. I had my keep all lined up but there's no afd. And enforced wikibreaks are the best. It's like getting out of life sentence in jail. I actually came out of my break earlier then planned. My exams ended earlier then I thought and I was bored. Someone explained to me off-line how to get around the block and I did that. I'm not going to tell you how to get around it in case you want to use it one day. For my next wikibreak I'll just have to get blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I told you I was going to make the article you said you would probably put it up for deletion, out of an intense jealousy for all that is Chicago. As far as blocking, when the time comes I know how Im gonna get perma-blocked (my secret tho) Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget afd, that's a csd. It's nonsense and vandalism. But serious for a sec, that's a great article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take care of this but you got me on 1RR for that article. See the trouble you caused? Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're on 1rr. I didn't know that. I'll now take full advantage of that. Hmm <thinking deviously>, what can i shove into the article? Btw, you have only yourself to blame for getting into an 3rr. No sane person would ever edit that article. You're just begging for heartache and stress. The revert that I made was, I think, the first edit I made to that article in weeks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True that, not really a commandment but a suggestion I said I would try to adhere to, so if do something nuts I might be inclined to forget the 1RR. Best off just waiting until I leave (soon) to make the article the truth. Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I didn't realize that you hadn't seen the CfD. I saw it just a short time before it closed and it was marked as deleted before I had a chance to put my thoughts down. It was relisted after pointing out to the closing admin that the CfD had never been tagged properly on the category, which would account for why you may not have seen it. I had assembled some facts on the definingness of the knuckleball pitcher at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers, planning to use it for DRV. Take alook and let me know if there are any other materials available to help make it clear that knuckleball pitchers are not just perople who happen to throw a knuckleball, but tend to be characterized by the pitch itself. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realized that it went through cfd because I was on a wikibreak. I'm quite amazed what had transpired. The close contrary to the clear consensus was nothing less then disgraceful.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had tried to communicate the issues to the closing admin, but he seems to be taking some sort of wikibreak of his own. Looks like the DRV to overturn the result will be filed shortly. Alansohn (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Can you please send me a link to the DRV when it starts? Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hope your exams went well. Sorry your "ace" didn't have a better game today - at least they won for me yesterday :) StarM 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Star. I hate that guy. Don't get me started on that baby.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not a good baseball weekend, but I stand by my earlier thoughts - 140 games to go. Too early to panic. Panic int he first month in the NFL because that matters, this doesn't. Have a good night! StarM 03:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is a -men. 162 games. The panic is driving me nuts. StarM 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a major part of the "panic" is the mounting frustration on the Mets fans realizing that this team has the same heartless and gutless characteristics they had the last three years so this season will finish the same way it finished the last three years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- good point. I think the reason last season didn't gut me was we fell out of it so early. I just don't see how extra pressure makes for better play. Odd StarM 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt sure on that one, but had already hit revert by the time I thought to check. Thanks, Ono (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i hate trolls! StarM 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you should voice your concerns on the article's talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brewcrewer! I have posted a response to your comment regarding your concerns re NPOV at Lydda Death March. I've gone through the bibliography of the article and cannot find evidence to support your claims that "All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans" and "Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims." Could you please respond and explain to me what I'm missing? The article has preliminary approval for the DYK page and I don't want the tag up there when it appears on the main page. So the matter is somewhat pressing. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 06:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Tiamut, I noticed your detailed response at the article talkpage. It looks like something that would requires proper analysis and research on my part and would take some time. The problem is my eyes are closing on me and someone has kept me very busy at different threads for the last while. I must go to sleep now. I will try to find time tomorrow to see if my preliminary analysis was incorrect. In any case, if my concerns are indeed incorrect surely you can find a consensus that would be contrary to my opinions. Besides, as a somewhat experienced DYK-nommer, I know the whole shindig will take atleast 5 days, leaving ample time for analysis and discussion. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brewcrewer. Well as I wrote to you on the talk page, Lydda Death March is already in the DYK queue meaning it should appear in the next couple of days. That was the fastest approval yet I've had for a DYK nom (it will be my 33rd, thank you very much ;) and I was quite surprised by the speed with which it was picked up. As a result, and because neither you nor NoCal100 have made any substantive objections regarding NPOV (sorry, my opinion, but I believe that an RfC would bear that out actually), I boldly removed the tag. As I ask on the talk page there, I'm not averse to having it readded if when identifying the NPOV problems you perceive, you take the trouble to outline how they may be corrected in practical terms. If there is no such suggestion, the tag would seem rather vindictive, rather than policy-based and aimed towards article improvement. Have a good night's rest. Tiamuttalk 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to update you, I went ahead and opened an RfC on the issue to get some outside views and make sure I'm not letting my own POV run rampant over what others might see as legitimate concerns. You are welcome to participate after you'd had a good sleep. See you there. Tiamuttalk 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would you mind taking a look at this and letting me know what you think? Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact prefer it to be red. Not sure how I get that back though. Help? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are forgiven. I'd still like to try to get it back to red though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the cool kids have red userpages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an idea, but it would make me a poseur rather than the cool kid I used to be until someone decided to edit my userpage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be happy to know I'm red again. You owe me one involuntary userpage edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is yet another contentious I/P article I think you should have gone to great lengths to ensure that your move was first proposed formally and then discussed in detail between all concerned beforehand. It seems inevitable that we will now have the usual round of disruptions and recriminations resulting in all sorts of useless unpleasantness, while the article iteslef will probably degrade into something far less useful than the current version. The new title simply isn't suitable simply because the Exodus from Lydda is a separate matter, as is the massacre. Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian, the move was discussed in detail at Talk:Exodus from Lydda#Title.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's linked from DYK on the main page now with the wrong title. I don't suppose we can do anything about it now - unfortunate though. I honestly thought it was going to be a good and rare example of collegial editing. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't get to bothered about that. That frequently happens on purpose. See for example, the articles that are in the "In the news" section of the mainpage. Most, if not all, are pipedlinks. In any case, I also hope that the article will be a good example of collegial editing. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you going to warn your friend too? 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He or she is an experienced editor and is well-aware of edit-warring rules. I see that you're an IP, which usually means you're a new editor, so I figured you may be unaware of Wikipedia rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just who do you think i am and if you think i am a sock puppet file a rfcu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandusaleh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's an "rfcu"? You're obviously a more experienced editor then myself and are better aware of these acronymic wikiterms. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- read this carefully; rfcu=request for checkuser; sockpuppetry is only an issue if i were to use multiple accounts in the same area, i freely admit to being an experienced wikipedian but i do not want all the bullshit associated with editing these pages to follow me around everywhere. i am not anybody who has messed with that page, but if you dont feel satisfied file a rfcu. but who do you think i am and please dont say crypt cause i am not making retarded rants about prophets and other such nonsense. Gandusaleh (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|