User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2015/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. |
Hi
@Brewcrewer: History of Jews in Jordan is irrelevant to Arab Israeli conflict. Non of the history of Jews in Arab countries articles have that classification, I kindly ask to reconsider that classification? --Makeandtoss (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is. For example, the fact Jordan would not allow Jews access to the holy places in Jerusalem is tied both to the conflict and to the history of the Jews there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all Jerusalem is not in Jordan, the article talks about History of Jews in Jordan. It is absolutely irrelevant to Arab Israeli conflict. Not every Jew is Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew, plus as I said none of the history of Jews in Arab countries has that classification. The content is better off at the Jordan-Israel relations.--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict when this happened. Anyway, this is a discussion for the article talk page, not here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all Jerusalem is not in Jordan, the article talks about History of Jews in Jordan. It is absolutely irrelevant to Arab Israeli conflict. Not every Jew is Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew, plus as I said none of the history of Jews in Arab countries has that classification. The content is better off at the Jordan-Israel relations.--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhm still, Jerusalem was never part of Jordan.--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll tell you this once only: your silly hyper technical rationales for removing content not to your liking is not going to fly. Keep it up and you'll be topic banned.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not to my liking?! The content is completely irrelevant to the article.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am still on my stance regarding that classification.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think you are doing, refusing discussion? Remove that baseless warning on my talk page before I bring this over to administrators.--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)