User talk:Brewcrewer

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Brewcrewer/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Amazon Hey. I am a wikipedian for just a few days and I do not know a lot of things yet. One of them is if I should place my disscusion here. You modified my category of Peoples of Amazon just into Amazon. That article abou Barasanas was my seventh abou the Amazonian peoples. As more will be made I hope to link them all in one category, that is Peoples of Amazon. --IonutC (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Well, People of the Amazon is a very good name :) Thanks about that tip, for now I know how to use only the first five buttons of the editing page. I take a glance once and a while at the Wikipedia tutorials but it feels like there is too much information at once. I am going to take them step by step. Thats why I started with small articles. Hope my English is suitable, for it is not my native language :) One problem that I have is that my browser doesnt seem to support the apostrophe. I use Safari on Windows, and it just stops seeing the text after an apostophe. You happen to know by any chance how (or if) I can fix this? Talk page archiving I went and fixed it up for you; let me know if I need to tweak any of what I did. The move method seems common, but i prefer the cut and paste method since it's far less messy. Any extra help can be found at Help:Archiving a talk page :) Wizardman 03:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Holy Trinity Episcopal Church I saw you added a stub that the Holy Trinity Episcopal Church was a registered historic place. I am having difficulty verifying that. Please direct me to the reference on that. Thanks. FieldMarine (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response. Happy New Year to you. FieldMarine (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC) It's not on the National Register, but apparently is recognized by the state and county governments. It sounds like it should qualify. I've found that many churches are afraid of being listed on the National Register because they are afraid it will subjec them to increased control by local bureaucrats. This church is a Carpenter Gothic structure which is am endangered species. It's the oldest congregation and church building in the area. clariosophic (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Eftekasat Hi! It's me again... Can you please check those two webpages and see if they are enough to create an Eftekasat page?! http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/808/pe1.htm http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=4921 Thanks Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Comment on J-stan's RfA Hi there, I've removed your !vote at J-stan's RfA It's considered bad form to comment/vote/discuss before the RfA is accepted. I just wanted to let you know so that you can re-add your !vote once the RfA has been accepted and properly filled. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Rainhut Apologies, I was confused by the editor's use of the word "author" - I presumed (not unreasonably) that they were talking about the author of the book, not the author of the page. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) No need to apologize to me, it's fine. BTW, he was refering to the author of the book. He claimed to be in contact with the author. Whatever. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Dells Raceway Park Thank you for salvaging the article from speedy deletion. Creating an article for it was on my To Do list for a while. I have already posted images of the track on my Flickr account that I'll upload. Cheers! Royalbroil 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I'd rather save an article any day. I rarely delete (except in extremely cases) even though I now can. Royalbroil 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Macfoy family (Sierra Leone) An editor has nominated Macfoy family (Sierra Leone), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macfoy family (Sierra Leone) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Harris, Klebold & other nonsense No problem. I've kind of been watching this and decided to say something about the attack. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) image removal Me and Lyor have been pals for over 20 years. He thought it was funny but I'll try and dig up one from the same session (we were at a wedding) when he wasn't goofing around. As for the earlier caption, it was me ribbing him since he can be kinda pompous and vain. I'm like his keeping it real 'angel' on his shoulder to counter the showy media baron 'devil' on the other. --It's Dark... • ...and Hell Is Hot! 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Lyor Cohen Quit removing shit I just put in. Ima put them all back now and source them. Kthxbye.--Piepie (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) All of my edits are valid and sourced. If you keep this up I'm taking this to arbchat. --Piepie (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) PROTIP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ1qi9gz7UU INTERNET HATE MACHINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.15.2 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Douglas Rushkoff You've apparently "offended" Graham Wellington (talk · contribs). He has taken umbrage at the language you used in your edit summary here [1], which contained the word "bullshit". I've explained to him that your reversion was valid and that I personally believe the summary to be, at worst, impolite. Perhaps you should provide him with context? ;-) Although his message was fairly innocuous, disregarding the emotive tone, his interactions with you are resembling (if not bordering on) agitation. I won't be able to devote much energy to Wikipedia this weekend, so if it continues I suggest explaining your situation at WP:AN. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Apologies for the belated reply. The city of Liverpool has been celebrating the beginning of its status as "European Capital of Culture". Uh, Ringo.........performed ;-) This message is essentially an addendum really. Further research has yielded more interesting diffs, such as this edit by Graham Wellington's avowed IP 67.83.219.204 (talk · contribs). I googled to determine the veracity of that edit and produced no relevant results. Various sources indicate that he was/is Catholic...can you confirm that? My good faith has been seriously depleted so I've prepared a report for AN should conditions necessitate. Don't hesitate to contact me :-) Regards, SoLando (Talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Substituting "Torah" for "bible" has obvious implications, assuming Jamelke is indeed not Jewish. Technicalities certainly can't apply to that edit, alas ;-). SoLando (Talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Your Message Whatever dude. All my edits on Lyor Cohen are not only true but well sourced. You can't candycoat a profile of a guy who is a villain in the world of rap. I'll bring on the NY Times and LA Times reports on Lyor even if I have to pay for the archives and host them on my own site. Stop being such a fanboi. --Piepie (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Sock puppet You might want to double check your diffs in the last part of the complaint. I think they are the same links. Ta! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) BTW...re. socks and 4chan anon is legion. lol.--Piepie (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Cohen Biz Okay. Sorry for the snarky tone...I don't wanna get in a pissing match with anyone. I was in the middle of trying to do a thorough job and you were all up in it. He's a polarising figure in the music biz and especially in the rap world (my 'field' if you will) who is very much in the public eye atm (Warner Music's stock plunge/job on line). Also, all that controversy is legit and verifiable. However, some of the better sources/links are now in archives that you have to pay to get at. That's not good for me or the wiki's readers. In fact nearly every thing that needs sourcing is in one archived LA Times piece that covered the Murder Inc raid and the TVT case combined. Lest you think it's an 'attack piece', if you go back into the history I've provided straight-up information. And I tried to put in some humanising stuff which you also removed (he's a dad, sportsman, and active in fundraising for the deaf). Other bios have that stuff so I don't know where you draw the line. Anyway...no harm no foul. Peace --Piepie (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Curiosity quotient You caught me in the middle of an edit. Noles1984 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Discussion regarding Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping Brewcrewer, a discussion to determine consensus regarding the possible deletion or renaming of Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping is ongoing at user categories for discussion. Feel free to comment there. Regards, Iamunknown 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Ethnic Coutnries I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Ethnic Coutnries. The reason is: This article provides enough context to not be speedy deletable. If you still think it should be deleted, try PROD or AfD. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I still don't know what the article is trying to do. What in the world is an "ethnic country" and a "non-ethnic country" ?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) RfD nomination of War World I I have nominated War World I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Cobra Noir Hello, it was not me who created the Cobra Noir (band) article. It's just that somebody added informations about this band in the Black Cobra article. I know nothing about this band, and first I wanted to just rm the part about Cobra Noir, but then I had second thoughts: I think that may be it is best to check if this band meet the notability criteria or not before deleting it completely. I intend to do some researches on the web to check it (no more than a few days). Hervegirod (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC) As said in my talk page, I was not the one who created Cobra Noir information at first (just put it in a separate article), and I don't know this band, but I think that deleting an article after 5 mns is going a bit too far ;-) Hervegirod (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Reply Vandalism is how I title all of my warning messages. It was pretty light. --HPJoker Leave me a message 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Lyor Cohen I deleted the image from Wikipedia per the IFD discussion. The image is also on Commons and that is what you are seeing. To remove the image from the Commons will require a request for deletion on the Commons. Whether or not the image stays in the article is up to the editors of the article. Those discussion usually take place on the article talk page. -Nv8200p talk 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Pratically, I had no effect. The image was deleted from the Wikipedia image server system as determined by the WIkipedia IFD. Commons is a separate system and a separate IFD will have to be initated. Anyone can remove the image from the article but it can as easily be added back in. Until the image is removed from Commons or an agreement is reached to remove the image from the article, from a user perspectives the situation is the same. -Nv8200p talk 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1) Nominate the image for removal from the Commons like was done on Wikipedia. 2) Start a discussion on the image talk page and see if there is a consensus to remove it. This looks like a legitimate free use image and I have never had any luck getting rid of such images no matter how crappy they are. There seem to always be two or three people that want to get keep the image and only me that wants it deleted so I cannot get consensus. Good luck -Nv8200p talk 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) terror/mass murderer A terrorist does not need to kill anyone to be a terrorist. In some cases, they have succeeded in only blowing themselves up so they murder no one just commit suicide. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I stand by the statement that a terrorist does not have to kill anyone. If I make a statement that I am going to blow up a building with the purpose of disrupting what goes on there, I am a terrorist. The threat of bodily harm will interrupt what people do even if I don't go though with the threat. The fact that some terrorists actually go though with the threats only makes my statements realistic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Asiaphile Can you please tell me why you want this page deleted? The page no longer lack reliable sources. So it deals with the issue that it looks like a dictionary entry. Tkguy (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks Brewcrewer, thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation. They mean a lot as I really enjoy reading and writing about these subjects. Thanks again and the best to you and yours. Culturalrevival (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Steve Smiths Replied on my talk.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) materialism Give me a break bud, I have just started working on it ... what do you know about the subject? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I know absolutly nothing about the subject, and that's why I would love to see refs. :-). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Well, I think you should go back and read the policy notes for new page patrollers. How can you make statements like " original research or unverified claims" if you know nadda about the topic? At the very least, go do a quick Google and make a judgement on the fly before slapping folk about, especially AS they are still working on an article, or check the user's track record for adding references and citations. it is not exactly conducive to editing. """So, did someone flag me up on some admin list or chat line? I have never had this problem before. Ask first shoot later ... please--- Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 1)Please point me to the "new page policy notes" where it states that one isn't supposed to put an unreferenced tag on an article with no references soon after it is created. 2)I'm not sure what you mean when you state "How can you make statements like 'original research or unverified claims' if you know nadda about the topic?" I don't have to know anything about a topic to see that there are no refrerences on the article. Just because there's a references somewhere, it still doesn't solve the problem if the Wikipedia article doesn't have a link to the reference. 3)In any case, I have no idea why you are getting so hung up about the tags. I can only imagine the reaction I would have gotten had I vandalized the article. The tags aren't permanent, if you don't like them then take them off. As a matter of fact, if you want to remove them without adding any references then go ahead, see if I care. The point of the tags isn't to give some sort of grade to the creator. It's there so that other editors might want to help finding references. 4)There's no admin chatline, as far as I know (I'm not even an admin). It's just that both of us (me and the one who took the article to afd) were sitting on the new pages and your article came across. 5)But if you still have a problem with my actions, then I am sorry, but you should know that I had good intentions. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Nathan Gale People notable only for one event is for people "associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime..." I'd like to suggest that murdering the guitarist of a Grammy-nominated band is not an unimportant crime. I'd like to consider removing that redirect. What are your thoughts? Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I'll tell you the truth, I looked at the contrib history only after I redirected it. When I saw that you had contributed substantially to the article I figured that you might not agree. I wouldn't have redirected sans discussion had I realized that an established and prominent editor as yourself was involved. In any case, it looks like you're right, and WP:BLP1E probably doesn't not apply. I'm still not sure about the overall notability, but I don't have a problem if you undo the redirect. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I haven't written any of that article. I just rv vandalism there really. I have it on my watchlist because it's an article that gets a good share of vandalism. Dimebag fans scrawling hatred toward Gale. I'll return the article to its previous form - and maybe today I'll do some work on that article to graduate it from being a stub. Thanks, and cheers! Kingturtle (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Um Hello Why did you tag an experimental page I linked to my own userpage for deletion? Serendipodous 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Oh wait. I see. Sorry. Serendipodous 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I tried to fix it, but I don't think I was correct. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC) My RFA Thanks! [[User:Brewcrewer|Brewcrewer]], thank you for showing your support in my RFA which passed with 38 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral! I also want to give special thanks to my Admin Coach and nominator, Useight for all of his help and support. I promise that I'll give my best effort as an admin, and I hope that your confidence in me proves to be justified. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. In the mean time, I have some cleaning to do. Have a great day! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Did not want redirect. I did not want the Crooker Theater page to be a redirect. - NewAgeServer2 Hello Its nice to know we share the same DOB. Would look forward to collaborate with you on something, if ever get the chance. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Zoetrope (band) Hey, I noticed that you tagged the page I created for the band Zoetrope for deletion citing lack of notibility. The band and article meet two of Wikipedia's standards for notability for a musical group: releasing 2 or more albums on a mjor label or an important independent label (in this case, 2 of the band's albums were issued on Combat Records and reissued by Century Media, 2 noted independent labels) and that the band must contain at least one member who was part of or went on to play with a band that is otherwise notable (in this case, members went on to Ministry (band), Pigface, Trouble (band), and Cathedral (band), just to name a few). All of this is noted in the article and according to the WP:MUSIC page, a band needs to only meet one of these criteria. Any other suggestions or reasons why you think the article should deleted or how it can be improved would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Civilized Worm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Crisis Control Group, LLC Per your suggestion, I salted for 1 week (it's possible a legitimate article could be written, which is why I didn't do it for longer).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Makes sense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Re:AFD It's the AFD script I'm using. Will (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Mike Nardi Someone updated it, and I do believe someone removed the tag. Cheers, Basketballone10 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, in it's current state it might be okay because he's in a professional league in Italy. But regular college players are unnotable. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Notability Tags Please stop removing the notability tags. They are not redundant when an article is up for AfD as it shows it's history of being tagged for improvement and nothing being done. Another editor and I have been reverting these edits this morning. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree with that. "Show the history" isn't the reason for the notability tags. The reasons for the notability tag are to get editors to improve it. The afd tag takes ample care of that problem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I disagree. Please also see this note from an admin. It's important to see that the article had ample time to be improved, not that it was recently created and then tagged. These are tags going back nine months. Some users indicate this knowledge as a reason behind their AfD vote. Travellingcari (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Even if User:Jfire were an admin (which I doubt) it doesn't make the argument correct. If you want to see if the article had ample time to improve you can just check when the article was created. You've got to be kidding if you think that editors check when the notability tag was placed on the article. I don't know what you are showing me with the second link. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC) You may be right that he isn't an admin. He has the ability to block "Thanks for the heads up; user is now blocked. Jfire (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)", which made me think he was. I was showing you where the person realised it wasn't a new article. The reason for the date in the tag is to give the timeline for how long it's been tagged as notable to allow it to be categorized and work through the backlog more efficiently. Please stop removing the tags, the bottom line is there's no good reason to do so. Travellingcari (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC) If he has the ability to block then he's an admin, but, in any case, his admin status regarding this issue means nothing. I don't know what your point is about the date in the notability tag. "No good reason for the removal of tags" is not a basis for the insertion of notability tags. If there's no good reason for the insertion of the tag and it clutters up the article then it should be removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) My point is that the date is what allows them to be categorized. People work through WP:BACKLOG as I'm doing now and might want to tackle articles that have been tagged with issues for a significant amount of time. It's hard/impossible to do so if the tags are removed. Travellingcari (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Putting an article up for deletion creates the greatest incentive to tackle the issues of an article. Once its up for deletion the notability tag is superflous. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I agree with Travellingcari. The tags serve a useful purpose, even after the article is brought to AfD, and especially so when they have been on the article for a significant length of time. They make it clear to visiting editors that any interested parties have had a fair chance to improve the article, and hadn't, which is often a point used in support of deletion. Conversely, if the article isn't tagged, it's not clear that interested parties have been given a chance to improve the article, which may be used to support a keep argument. Removing the tag makes the status either way less clear. Yes, it's available in the history, but why make editors go through the extra work of checking the history? In addition, an AfD can end without reaching a consensus, which means the tag most likely still applies and would have to be restored. No, the time to remove the tag is after a consensus has been reached at the AfD that the subject does meet the notability guidelines, i.e. after it is closed with result keep (or in some cases, when the eventual outcome is clear per WP:SNOW). PS, no, I'm not an admin. Jfire (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC) See this article for a recent example of an article that survived a no-consensus AfD without having notability established. The second AfD did establish notability, and after it was closed, the tag was removed. Jfire (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) OK, you guys win, you're right. :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Prod Hi, I don't think notability is really required for video games in the WP:N sense. It seems that a review at MobyGames suffices. In any case wouldn't the video game version of an award winning film be sufficiently notable, maybe? -- Mentifisto 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Nope, I'm sure not everything has to be notable. The one thing that surely has to be notable is a person - other than that many things are debated and end up with no consensus or mainly just an implied direction to keep, like articles on schools, and it seems video games too - there are many video game articles around. Also, I thought about writing it in the film's article but usually such things have a completely different article since they're on a different topic essentially. So I'm not sure what to do but having such an article won't harm anything and maybe it will be expanded in the future which would require a separate article anyway if we initially wrote it in the film's article. -- Mentifisto 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Heh, thanks for being newbie-friendly but I am somewhat experienced with WP so don't worry, I know what anchors et al. are. :-p And actually, yeah, they fight over the notability of schools (besides, that page isn't policy) but I'm not so sure it'll be successful - I submitted an AfD and it was kept unanimously. In any case do you know of any other film of which a video game was produced and it was written in the film's article? -- Mentifisto 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC) What would you do about the 100s of such articles on video games then? -- Mentifisto 01:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) By the way, maybe the main point of video game notability is its creator. Obviously an unpublished video game made by someone some random day wouldn't be notable but if the company that makes these video games is already notable and has an article on WP too why wouldn't its games have articles too? Hercules was even platinum. -- Mentifisto 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Aw, food? A game is a whole new world not just an accessory added to something bigger... video games are developed for whole years before they're released. Fast food is made in minutes. :-p As I said though, it was platinum and there are many other video games in Platinum range that have articles, some are even FAs today. -- Mentifisto 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Haha, if people ate as much as some people play video games then the world would be MUCH fatter than it is. Also, I can counter your argument by saying that Square Enix, a really notable company in the video games industry, the company who developed the Final Fantasy series (many here are FAs too... just a hint of how many video gamers edit WP) has surely developed games that aren't as notable, maybe even economic failures (not that it would matter for such a titanic company), but they still have articles on WP just because they're from Square Enix. What do you think of that? -- Mentifisto 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Well if you don't have time for AfDs then don't even prod them or anything else you don't generally have time for. But do you agree with me now on the above argument for video game notability? I'm not sure what the general WP consensus is on this but since I saw many video game articles like this I just created another one for a Disney's film that ranked platinum. If that's not notability for you I don't know what is. Generally though, I think, if WP didn't want non-notable video game articles it would have deleted them long ago and not end up with so many now. -- Mentifisto 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC) If you agree then please remove the prod tag. -- Mentifisto 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Nah you're not pissing me off, just wasting some time. :-) And, yeah, as I understand that section on notability in the link you provided a third-party source must be provided - like many other articles on video games have - MobyGames is the third party source. It isn't affiliated with any specific game, it just documents video games generally (that obviously must be already popular etc. for it to notice them). So? Did I understand anything incorrectly? -- Mentifisto 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) And yeah I knew that I could remove a prod tag but if you remove it then the dispute would have been solved and you wouldn't take it to AfD, so obviously that's what I want. -- Mentifisto 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Well, explain why nearly all games have MobyGames as an external link then. There's even a template set for it. Also, if it isn't eligible then which site is exactly? The link at the project is very ambiguous anyway. This situation is like that of schools... they usually provide their own homepage as an external link... I assume that's even worse. Just which site could be linked to anyway? This? Or this? I just don't know. -- Mentifisto 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) References or not many video game articles have only MobyGames as an external link. I asked here about whether it's reliable or not. I guess it will be decided there. :-) -- Mentifisto 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC) And by the way, obviously I wasn't talking about a school article of such quality. There are many school articles that just have primary sources as references or external links, just like the one I submitted for AfD Carolina Bible College. -- Mentifisto 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido My Spanish is limited and my understanding of Spanish Wikipedia rules are none. From the way the articles are posted in Spanish Wikipedia, I have no idea where they get their references.. Usually, when I find blatent references I put them in but in some I have no idea.. I am trying to find a search engine for articles in Spanish papers that I can look at, but have not been able to find any.Usually Cuban articles info I go to Cuba and look for them in the national library there, but I only go there like once a year.Callelinea (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Deletion Review for Feloni An editor has asked for a deletion review of Feloni. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Caknuck (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Cuban artists Hello, Brewcrewer ... your cleanups to articles listed in Category:Cuban contemporary artists are commendable, but what these articles really need is reliable sources to verify meeting the WP:BIO criteria ... please see Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists#Continuing deletions, and perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of editors on this fledgling project ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Redirect of Evan Mendell Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Evan Mendell, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Evan Mendell is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Evan Mendell, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Deletion Review for Corey Worthington An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corey Worthington. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AW (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Sapangbato An article that you have been involved in editing, Sapangbato, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapangbato. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) prodded For what it was, I thought sending to AFD would get it done quicker. Prods are just proposals to delete something, but AFDs are "nominations" with actual consensus. ViperSnake151 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) stubs on chinese dams Hello Brewcrewer, I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion. You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS. If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! PamD (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Salangbato, Philippines An editor has nominated Salangbato, Philippines, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) {{Oldprodfull}} Hello, Brewcrewer ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it? Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol? Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Hatnotes Regarding this edit, please see WP:HATNOTES#Placement. The guideline has an appropiate format with templates and dabs at the top of a page. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs Posca Tommy Kramer Thomas Mundy Peterson Taking Children Seriously Russ Peterson Michael Golden Damian Miller Phoenix Brewers John E. Peterson Neil Lomax Debbi Peterson Kevin Mawae Third Street Promenade Terrence McGee Scott La Rock Will Shields Darren Sharper Internal rhyme Disorderly conduct Cleanup Kim Peterson Tom Peterson Gene Ronzani Merge Vicodin Optimates Mike Hunt Add Sources Swoosh Lateral pass Dugout (baseball) Wikify Search and destroy Bowling Green State University Jack Pierce (athlete) Expand Mark Antony (character of Rome) Kalends of February 1996 NFL Draft SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Irish American Ninja I removed the notability tag and added some sources from press articles. I'll see if I can get some reviews WhisperToMe (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Seth E. Ward Wow! Edits within one minute of an initial entry! And a move at that. There was no explanation on the edit summary. Could you explain the rationale for a move? Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Hi. According to WP:NAMEPEOPLE the most important element of names for people is: "The name that is most generally recognisable." I assume that he (like the vast majority of people) isn't known by his middle initial. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Best, There's probably a better descriptor but I will think about it.Americasroof (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) good job Welcome to Wikipedia. Although no person is welcome to make unconstructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appears to be constructive and has been smiled about or lauded. Please use every article for any great edits you would like to make, and take a look at the page for cool editors to learn more about contributing awesomely to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) HUH?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) SHUDDUP!!!! Don't Erase it like you did to the other one Stupid!How would people who haven't seen it that wanna see it see the story so they atleast no what it's about!-User:Solo28 —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Astarte (band) The group has five albums on notable labels and a three-paragraph-long Allmusic bio...should be a cinch to pass WP:MUSIC Chubbles (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the star Just doing my part to bring enlightenment to the heathen masses who think that tossing a hamburger on a grill is "barbecue".  :) scot (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Albrecht III As a courtesy, I am advising you that this AfD, on which you have commented, has been extended to include House of Wetter-Tegerfelden. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Um, wow. You've hit something fairly interesting here. I daresay from reading this article you can figure out who "Hans Albrecht III" is. Choess (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Yes indeed, that's the "prince" That's the crazy part about the whole thing, it's hard to decipher fact from fantasy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Please tell me, who "Hans Albrecht III" is! Please, someone let me in on the hoax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetw2008 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Congratulations, you made alphabet soup... and made me laugh :) Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) People rarely laugh at my attempts at humor, so I feel great ;-). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) laughs are very good on a snowy Friday :) Travellingcari (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC) That's exactly right, and I'm staring at the snow right now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) hope you're out of the snow, I got soaked on my way to work. Oh and look what I found The Barnstar of Good Humor for making alphabet soup early this cold morning Travellingcari (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Re: thanks Hey no problem. And congrats on passing your "initiation" :) Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Judge categories Thank you for your work categorizing some of our articles about judges. I've seen your edits come up on my watchlist because I wrote or edited a few of these articles, so I wanted to tell you your work is appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you, I noticed that you had initiated a lot of the articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks so much! made me smile. I'm so glad I finally installed twinkle, made the AfD work so much easier! Quick question, is there a guide somewhere on how to format a sig? I know it's changed under preferences, but I don't know where to get the color codes. Straight HTML? Travellingcari (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) in other words, not this work of art ;) PS: Just realised you used Werdnabot to archive, you know it's out of commission, right? Travellingcari (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I'm going to work out color in the morning, my brain hurts as it's 12:45 here. I think I like this for the moment :D I'm hopeless with the archive as well. I got MiszaBot working for a bit but then I think it doesn't love me any more since it didn't clean me up recently. We'll see TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I normally can too, but this week at work and working on my thesis have eaten my brain. I'm afraid I might poke someone of the 'but but my left toe is so notable!' variety in the eye if I don't go play quietly o:) I have to say, however, I laughed my ass off when I saw this earlier today on User:Jayron32: Since you've seen it, I took it off so it doesn't kill your talk page. Just noticed at the top that you're a student -- what are you studying if you don't mind my asking. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC) OK I'll see it in the morning, bedtime for this bozo :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Star Cashville Prince What did you mean by the NYTimes being "too good" of a source? Flowanda | Talk 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I was making an (apparently unsucessful) attempt at humor, as it was a copy and paste. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC) You mean "sampled" right? Thanks for the clarification; of all the articles I gutted this week, it was the one source I recognized. Not that there many to begin with. Flowanda | Talk 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC) tags once a speedy has been removed, do not re-add it--this is edit warring, and over something that will not make any difference, for the article would very soon be deleted anyway. But precisely because it does not matter in fact, I'm going to let it pass. Not every admin would, though--it's only fair for me to remind you of this. DGG (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid you're wrong. For example, if an A1 is removed it doesn't preclude from tagging as a copy-vio. Similiarly, the re-addition of the speedy in this case was to fix a previous apparantly defective tag. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) yes but it was the same tag for the same reason. It's not that the tag was incomplete, we were discussing the reason. Not worth further bother, though. DGG (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Your reason for turining down the speedy was because it did not state a csd basis. I fixed it by adding the basis. The fact that you think that it isn't a non-controversial deletion wasn't included in the edit summary of your speedy denial, and you only told me this after I had already re-tagged it. Had you told me originally that you don't consider it to be non-controvercial I wouldn't have re-tagged it. You think it's "not worth further bother", but I'm very sensitive to the accusation of violating policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC) CBS Daytime If you feel it should be deleted, which I do not, you will have to give it its own AfD nomination, you cannot piggy back it on the the NBC Daytime nomination. They have separate issues, not the least of which is CBS has references and NBC does not. KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Shaw nobility hoax Please help me identify and block the accounts and IP's involved. If you find unblocked accounts or IPs from this whole ordeal, please notify my talk page and I will block them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Re: Butt-in Thanks for the "butt-in" : ) I hope my comments didn't sound elitist on the user's talk page when I referred to myself as an established user. It was just strange to receive a template warning, and an incorrect one at that. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC) A Random Smile WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Epstein I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly put me in mind of the guy who kept trying to make an issue of Dylan Klebold and maybe being Jewish. He was blocked, but what was his name? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Maybe he has risen again. It smacked of latent anti-Semiticism to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Please re-review Arabic Network for Human Rights Information I've added several references and statements that are supported by the newspaper articles. I think it's a fairly decent stub at least. Feedback welcome! Renee (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Center of Syracuse I resent your accusation and request that you retract it. Corvus cornixtalk 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Could you please explain more fully? Thanks for observing the recommendation of the deletion policy of giving a heads up when you placed this {{prod}} Could you please explain your reasoning more fully? unnotable, fails WP:BIO. Being involved in a controversial and notable situaiton doesn't make one notable. There must be substantial coverage on an individual person for him to be notable. This has been the concensus of previous afd's. Please - per WP:CONCENSUS - stop making these articles. Wikipedia:BIO#Basic criteria says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I posed questions on Wikipedia:BLP#Noticeboard and WP:RS#Noticeboard about the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the CSR Tribunals. Questions were asked about the independence of the authors. I pointed out that while the authors of the documents were all officers and enlisted personnel in the US military, they were not in the Guantanamo chain of command. These documents were not part of the JTF-GTMO's intelligence gathering operations. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, in which the authors of the memos were temporarily serving, reported directly to a "Designated Civilian Official", skipping even the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I haven't a clue what your reference to WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to mean. Geo Swan (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)