User talk:Brewcrewer

talkback Hello, Brewcrewer. You have new messages at Talk:USS_Liberty_incident#Infobox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Rachel Corrie & Neutrality discussion board Hi Brewcrewer. Just letting you know that I have initiated a discussion mentioning you at the Neutrality discussion board [1] Holiday cheer Holiday Cheer Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS Moderation of Jerusalem RfC Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Brew. Thanks for the heads up. You just left a comment on my talk page after undoing one of my changes. Please note, the section I removed on Robert Spencer's page was removed previously by me after much discussion on the talk page. That talk page has since been archived. Please do take a look at the archives of the Robert Spencer's talk pages if you need reassurance (it was sometime in 2011). Thanks.1detour (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) GA Thanks This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status. On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Cool stuff, I'm actually the leading contributor (in # of edits) to that article[2]. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC) The Case of the Kidnapped Collie Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) A chance restart the discussion on a more productive basis Hi, Brewcrewer. I want to give you the opportunity to reconsider this before I reply to it, and you thus lose the chance to revert or replace it with an appropriately respectful comment or question. I do of course understand why you might feel misgivings about my having shown up at that article, as my first edit after a long wikibreak, but if you'd asked me politely, on my talk, about how I came to do so, I'd have been glad to tell you. Since you haven't done that, yet, anyway, and have instead opened your comments in what can only be described as a battleground manner, impugning me with base motives that I simply don't have, I'm not going to take the trouble to explain how I came to it at this point. But I will say that you couldn't be more wrong in the assumption you've obviously made that my having shown up at that article was motivated by a wish to contribute to "the besmirchment of Jews", as you so delicately put it, or by sympathy with antisemitism, to put it in plain words. Further, your having couched your comments in terms amounting to "I'm not saying you're antisemitic, but you better be careful, 'cause other people might say so", along with your suggestion that I could be blocked for my participation there, seems frankly reprehensible to me. If you want to say you think I'm antisemitic, have the stones to say it directly rather than trying to attribute your views to some anonymous, hypothetical group of other people. Finally, your characterization of my "reputation" as "POV" and "anti-Israel" is just extremely offensive. It's true that I disapprove of Benjamin Netanyahu, and especially of the bellicose foreign policy promoted by his Likud party, but that no more makes me "anti-Israel" than it would make me "anti-American" if I happened to disapprove of Barak Obama and the foreign policy of his Democratic Party. I genuinely regret the necessity of speaking so plainly to you here, but I've tried many times in the past to move our communications and style of interaction in a more collegial direction, even once offering to help you find an appropriate "home" for emerging news reports about a spate of rocket attacks against Israel, and to develop that content on-Wiki, as you may remember. You didn't respond to that offer at all, nor to any of the other instances in which I've offered an olive branch. I've even offered one more, now, albeit a modest one, despite the truculence you've exhibited in your most recent address to me, with its opening sentence declaring most of my remarks as "obvious and unnecessary". ( They weren't directed to you, of course, but to the new accounts and clearly inexperienced IP(s) that had reached something like 6rr by that point over the Weinberg content. ) Specifically, the "olive branch" I'm extending at this point, besides the opportunity to revert or rephrase your comments, is that I've changed the heading I created for the section in which you made those comments. It occurs to me that apart from your having jumped to an entirely erroneous conclusion about how I came to the article, the section heading I originally chose may have seemed inappropriately casual, disrespectful, or even glib to you, for so serious a subject. I didn't intend that, of course, and if it did seem so, please accept my apology. In any case, I hope the change will soothe your feelings over this sufficiently to allow you to reconsider your remarks, and to begin our discussion of the matter anew, on a less acrimonious and thus more productive basis. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Brewcrewer, eight days have elapsed since you made your comment to implicate me in hatred of Jews, suggesting I was motivated by a wish to participate in their "besmirchment", as you put it. And it has been almost a full week since I asked you, above, to revert or rephrase that suggestion. You've found time since then to edit on four of different days, so perhaps you just missed the request, somehow? If so, please take this second opportunity to revert yourself, and if you're still interested in my actual motivation, post to my talk to ask how I came to that article. I'm reiterating the request not because I worry that some of the mud implicit in your comments might stick, nor really because I feel much personal umbrage over your remarks; I don't, actually. But I do think it's important for you recognize that gratuitous accusations of antisemitism damage the cause of racial and religious equality, whether they are made directly or at one remove using the "people might think" formula. --OhioStandard (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC) There has been no major editing as I am very busy in RL. Your comment is very long, bordering as usual in TLDR territory. I'll try to respond fully when I get a chance. Suffice to say for now it appears that you are overdramatizing things. I did not accuse of anything,I was only advising you of what maybe perceived if someone were to analyze your edit history. I'm not checking now but as I recall you spent almost the entire August trying to get an Israel related editor banned, you took off for a few months, and now this. I thought I would get a thank you, maybe even a barnstar, not one of your long speeches. I'm traveling at the moment and will be unable to respond for a few more days, at least. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Hmm. No long speeches, then, in reply. I'll just ask a third time: Please revert your comment, even provisionally, until you're able to "respond fully when you get the chance". Then come to my talk, and politely ask about how I came to that article, and about my motive there, rather than assuming you know. You really don't, and I'm pretty sure I can prove that to your satisfaction. C'mon; assume good faith, even in the face of your suspicion; that's when AGF is needed most. And in this case, at least, AGF is wholly warranted. You can always reinstate your remarks if you aren't convinced and even surprised. You have nothing to lose except a couple of keystrokes; please accede. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Hmm, again. I understand you're away from home, but you've had the opportunity to revert or rephrase for quite a long time, now. In your absence, I've decided to act, myself. I've refactored your original comment per WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor and per WP:RTP which encourages "removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material". This leaves you with two choices: to reinstate your personal commentary, or to come to my talk to politely ask about my motivation, which is what you should have done in the first place. I'd recommend the second option, as the first will move this resolution attempt to a place neither of us wants to go. Respectfully and hopefully, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)