User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2011/July
 | 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. |
Assistance?
Hello, Brewcrewer. I noticed you have edited and staked an interest in Libya lobby in the United States[1]. Earlier today, I posted a request for an independent editor to review the article in light of facts and research I have introduced. I do not wish to edit the page directly, because I am commenting on behalf of Monitor Group, and the subject matter I have inquired about is sensitive. If you have the time and are willing, please review and take any action on the page you see fit. Thank you, Cambridge141 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't really have a strong interest in the article at this time. Real life is also limiting my Wikipedia availability these days so there is little likelihood I will get involved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I think it's clear the article needs improvement. I am hesitant to submit edits myself, but we seem to be the only ones interested in the page. Perhaps you could suggest another editor who works on the Lobbying in the United States project who might be willing to help?
- Alternatively, my concerns have been already been addressed by independent editors on the Monitor Group talk page--resulting in a significantly improved article. Because no one seems interested in this page, I wonder if it would stir any controversy if I was to re-make similar improvements myself? I am very cautious about making edits, considering the circumstances. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Cambridge141 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just edit away. It doesn't appear that anyone cares. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK I think you are right. I will go ahead and make some edits. I very much appreciate your help. If/when you find the time, please review and take any action you see fit. Cheers, Cambridge141 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just edit away. It doesn't appear that anyone cares. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, my concerns have been already been addressed by independent editors on the Monitor Group talk page--resulting in a significantly improved article. Because no one seems interested in this page, I wonder if it would stir any controversy if I was to re-make similar improvements myself? I am very cautious about making edits, considering the circumstances. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Cambridge141 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
How about them Muts?
whatever got into them needs to get out, please? For the record, I'm saying NYM take 2/3 this weekend because NYY took 2/3 in May and they seem to always splot the season. StarM 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Darn, I just bet my life savings based on your usual reliable predictions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. Hope you had a good 4th. I spent it in enemy territory but survived StarM 01:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,
The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.
For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)