User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2013/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
MfD nomination of User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks
User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Please check talkpage prior reverting
I've explained all edits on Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, Greyshark simply removed everything. A balant POV push. --HistorNE (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh God, 1RR? I'm screwed. :( --HistorNE (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I already got warning day ago, but I didn't know about that specific rule and I sent you message few seconds after I received yours. --HistorNE (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- No I didn't refused, I misunderstood you so it's reverted now. --HistorNE (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- But this rules are funny sometimes indeed. You assumed I did something bad and you revert my edit, then I come and revert you with summary which led to constructive explanation on talkpage, then some pov-pusher come and revert it for 15 minutes. Since I saw it before his re-revert, I informed you I can not re-revert my edit because somebody else did it. Let's say I went 30 min to WC, got back and see block for 1RR, and you get warning by some other user for pov-pushing. Point? Don't eat too much pizza? :) As you said, awesome. --HistorNE (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- No I didn't refused, I misunderstood you so it's reverted now. --HistorNE (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I already got warning day ago, but I didn't know about that specific rule and I sent you message few seconds after I received yours. --HistorNE (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- A solution of sorts is reached at WP:ANEW, and I found HistorNE cooperative enough. I don't know if it will satisfy the opponents, and I notified HistorNE of the risk of reverting again and of using terms I deem unproductive in addressing other editors. Thanks for your input, and feel free to comment, deviate, or expand, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can't say your solution was illogical since he self reverted though I am a bit troubled that he figured things out only after the filing at WP:ANEW. Thanks for helping, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- They were at that board before, as you noticed, yes. But it's a beautiful day, I got a new battery for my bike and after a year and a half of inertia it started up nicely, and I want to see that cup as half-full. But I am running a little short of patience, and hope that the editor will stop playing around. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- :)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- They were at that board before, as you noticed, yes. But it's a beautiful day, I got a new battery for my bike and after a year and a half of inertia it started up nicely, and I want to see that cup as half-full. But I am running a little short of patience, and hope that the editor will stop playing around. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can't say your solution was illogical since he self reverted though I am a bit troubled that he figured things out only after the filing at WP:ANEW. Thanks for helping, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Goldstone report
Why did you remove my edit? Yes, it is stated twice: "Goldstone also expressed that he initially hoped the "inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted". Furthermore, it is not a fact that it is a bias there, which is presented as a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)