User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2014/August

Help with Possible Biases/Omission in article on Palestinians and Mandate of Palestine

Hello there. You were helpful with some of my previous edits but I've hand a lot more pushback when trying to add some information to the article on Palestinians, namely, the Sykes-Picot Pact, the Green Line, etc. The article claims that Palestinians are Jews and Christians in the region who converted, when the general historical consensus is that they arrived during the Crusades. I think the article present historical revisionism as a default and fails to present any opposing narratives (for example the article on Ashkenazi Jews introduces the Khazar Theory). I thought that my edits were productive, here's the type of thing I tried to add. [1] What's very concerning about the article is that it presents Palestinians as related to Philistines, Canaanites, etc, making an appeal to eschatology instead of history or anthropology. As for the Mandate, I thought that Transjordan was a part of the original British Mandate of Palestine. This has been discussed on the talk page but nothing has been done about it. I just looked on the page about Transjordan and it says "The territory was officially under the British Mandate for Palestine, but it had a fully autonomous governing system from Mandatory Palestine." I feel like this should be mentioned as it is part of historical context and omitting it from one article when it appears in many other articles is biased. So, what do you think? Cheers, --monochrome_monitor 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry friend, I just don't have the wherewithal to involve myself with that issue at the moment. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's alright. You do agree there's a bias, though? It's nice to have a friend around here. :) --monochrome_monitor 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (I) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Nison Teitelbaum]], rabbi of [[Drohobych|Drubitsh]], who was the son of the ''[[Yismach Moshe]]'' (Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Friesenhausen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dayyan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

My edit has been reverted - I did not know there was such a thing as 1R, let alone that that page was under that rule. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

punctuation

Please note: ranges of years, pages, letters of the alphabet, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen. Thus

Right: John Xmith (1842–1997)

Wrong: John Xmith (1842-1997)

Right: pages 140–268

Wrong: pages 140-268

Right: Encyclopedia of Whatever P–S

Wrong: Encyclopedia of Whatever P-S

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. How does one insert an en-dash?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

&ndash ; (no space between h and ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Pariah state - Join the discussion :)

Hi! I noticed you just added the USA to the list of current pariah states on the Pariah state article. Your opinion is valued, and I'd like you to join the discussion on the talk page of that article. We are developing a consensus for a radical re-write of the article that you might be interested in. It will not feature a list of current pariah states, which is impossible to maintain because there are no consistent criteria, and lists like that tend to invite POV pushing. The current list is full of entries that are only there because notable people used the term to describe one country or another, and there are more meaningful ways to cover the material.

There is a draft of the proposed new version too if you'd like to look it over and comment. The US is mentioned as being called a pariah state by Chomsky, only the draft uses the 2014 reference as well, not just the 2003 reference you cited. There's also a Robert Parry reference from 2006. It focuses on the lack of consistent criteria, and the flexibility that allows people to use the term in different ways.

People tend to just revert edits like the one you just made if there is no discussion (the US in particular has been going back and forth for years), but in this case, since we're on the verge of a major rewrite, I doubt anyone will bother because it'll all probably be gone soon anyway. There seems to be a consensus at least to get rid of the list entirely because it's such a lightning rod for disputes and it pulls attention away from coverage of what pariah statehood really means and its history going back to 1648 and the Treaty of Wesphalia.

Join in the discussion! Your views will be welcome, no matter what they are! Dcs002 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you talk as much as I do, you're bound to embarrass yourself on a regular basis. Like just now, when I realized you HAVE been part of that discussion! I'm sorry for missing that! I was really interested in getting as many opinions as we could, and I... well, sorry. I just hope I came off as inviting and polite while I was also being air-headed. And gawd I hope I didn't offend you! And of course you brought up that edit on the talk page, and I even responded to it! And I haven't even had a drop of alcohol for probably 2 months. I come by my confusion honestly! Feel free to delete this whole embarrassing section. Unless it gives you something to chuckle at. :) Dcs002 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for David Friesenhausen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious

"please everyone"
Thank you for quality articles such as the recent David Friesenhausen and 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, for Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest and trying to "please everyone", for voting to keep sourced information, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You're making me blush, thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You may take a look at this source[2].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the source you link to has the same exact wording as the Leiman article I utilize in the article. http://books.google.com/books?id=l2PfY74QF7IC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bobov articles.

Hi Brewcrewer; On the talk page of the main Bobov article, I put the highlights of the Psak Din. Hope it clarifies what the Psak Din says; and stops the infighting among the parties. Afarsimon (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock

I know it's usually good to remove the edits of a sock since their usually being disruptive, but it's also a good idea to live the ones that are sourced and are contributing to the project here. AcidSnow (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User was topic banned for a reason. Long known as a chronic pov-pusher, we can safely assume their edits do not comply with NPOV, and indeed they don't. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of them did but not all. Keep deleting his talk replies though. AcidSnow (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was the WP:DUCK evidence? I don't see a SPI. Theres many tht share his POV/editing style so I'm not sure how he was specifically identified? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If I knew I may not want to disclose as to ensure they make the same mistake next time they sock. User was clearly a sock, it was only a question of whom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I don't really know this users activities, but you have claimed that he was a POV pusher. Hence that he was banned and for various other reasons as well. Later on an "new" user comes along and they accused of being a sock of that user. But you guys choose not to make a sock investigation? In fact, this user was banned 2 years ago. To know he was a sock of that user is possible. But you last statement makes it seem like a guess. Like throwing a spear in the cover of darkness and hoping to hit somthing! But I a could be wrong since I rarely edit here. AcidSnow (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEANS--Shrike (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)