User talk:Haikupoet

Help Please

You Were Recently Invovled In The Deletion Of My Article "Factory: The Musical". The Film Is On A Video Cassette. Could You Kindly, (On My Discusion Page) Talk Us through How To Put This On The Internet? Many Thanks 9BUT NOT FOR DELETING OUR ARTICLE. RAWR!), Woomoobs57 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Haikupoet, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Way International

Saw your recent concerns about the NPOV of The Way International. I have neither the context (nor frankly the energy) to do it myself, but I'd point out that many of the concerns you mention should be added to the article are listed (albeit not in fully NPOV fashion themselves) in The Way's entry at List of purported cults. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I should probably add a link after checking it out. Thanks. Haikupoet 23:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parkerhouse

Good edits to the parkerhouse article. Way to go! Rad Racer | Talk 05:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it couldn't have been less specific about what a Parker House roll really is, and a link to a recipe is always a good idea. Haikupoet 05:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Aled Seago

Hi Haikupoet: I have presumed to wikilink your 'friends of gays' comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aled Seago because I think it may give offence to some people who are not aware of the source. Normally I would ask before making such an amendment but I thought that speed was of the essence here. Please forgive me if this upsets you; I mean well. --Theo (Talk) 11:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortwave bands

As the flower blooms,
Your rewrite brings me great joy;
Your words are golden.

Roodog2k 17:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Polydeism

• The VfD errs.
• I have cleaned up some problems,
• -- BDAbramson ^talk 13:39, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

Just a note, but watch out for Gabrielsimon's edits on this page... he removed an entire section and has done these things in the past. In the future, before replying to him there could you double check that he hasn't erased anything recently? We need to stay on top of him because his clear strategy is to simply try to erase things he doesn't like. DreamGuy 05:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. Thanks for the heads up. Haikupoet 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would really appreciate it if you could step in and undo his changes to Lilith. I go to other articles that I see he's pulling his schtick on to help out other people (like Otherkin, Witchcraft, etc.), but so far nobody is stepped in to help out on that article. DreamGuy 06:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, he removed the section AGAIN and then even removed part of the evidence section against himself... DreamGuy 18:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

He is one of the most obtuse people I've ever run into... Haikupoet 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• FYI: I've commented on the RFC talk page that you need to be a bit nicer. I agree with you, but although my tendencies run towards WP:DICK we need to try really hard not to be asses. His edits annoy me, and I fail to see that even a clue cannon would suffice, but this is the wikipedia, not the BOFH.  :) (and note MY username and where email goes, if you choose to test.  :) Wikibofh 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have noted this. Haikupoet 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I understand how frustrating it is, honest.  :) Wikibofh 04:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. Most of the conversation there has take place on the talk page. There is also a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz

I saw your AfD vote for Simson Garfinkel. While he is of somewhat greater noteriety than I (David Mertz) am, there seems to be a common weird bias against academics/computer writers (but a porn actor or indy band of 1/20th the influence is automatically kept). If you feel like voting, thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

No, no name calling. But we might block if everyone is tired of reverts without justification. (Actually, Justice has compromised; but he either doesn't understand verification, or he has retreated to one POV he refuses to religuish. I'm not sure which.) This is something to discuss on the talk page, but I'll wait for someone else to bring it up. kwami 06:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gnu/linux

I made an RfC over which redirect would be most suitable.

Categories

If an article is a member of category A, and category A is a member of category B, then the article is also a member of category B. So I didn't remove any categories. You did remove a category - the most important one. If you want to put the article into redundant categories, then whatever. I won't revert that, although it's wrong. But I do object to your deleting the main category. Mirror Vax 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We Hate Tech

Haikupoet; I want to change your view about We Hate Tech, while we may be rough on the edges, the program keeps the highest of morals. After the initial frustration of some users, most have settled down on the issue, and I wish to seek a fair and just solution. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Anticitizen 1 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't already think you guys had a humungous chip on your shoulder. Frankly, given what I've seen here and on your site, I don't see any reason to trust you without some sort of apology to people with more pull than me and a good-faith effort to stand down on the attempt to get your message across at any cost. (Even then I'd be inclined to think you've created a monster that might not be entirely under your control.) Haikupoet 01:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say Haikupoet, Im insulted. i dont ask you to trust me, i dont ask anyone to do anything but treat me and my efforts fairly. Please, dont think im seeking vengence, or to take anything down, i seek answers and justice. Im sorry you feel so intimidated. By the way, the whole chip on our shoulder metaphor, or whatever cleverness you think that is, its becoming over used. im not exactly sure what its supposed to mean anyway. if i was here only to take people down, i would have done so, so far ive seen nothing but attempts to take me down, sorry i dont fall over easily.Anticitizen 1 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right! You want to post comments about my friends like that? Well, you better pick on me as well Junior! All we are trying to do is get a little assistance and time to develop the Wiki. Instead you and a few others choose to drag the process down. Kmac1036 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenInfo Corporation and OpenGCL GIS Software

I don't know how the term "vaporware" came to be referenced with regards to this product, however I can assure you that OpenGCL is very much real, and has been in use by GIS developers for over 2 years. It was a project started in 1997, and took until 2003 to release. I would appreciate if Wikipedia would please remove any libelous comments about the software, or else risk legal action

• Oh boy. Legal threats from an anonymous user who hasn't proven his case on AfD. I'm shaking in my boots. I believe there's a policy against that. Haikupoet 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

165.154.136.7 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) once again, please remove libelous comments or risk legal action.

• Wikipedia:No legal threats. Go away. Haikupoet 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

FROM THAT SAME SOURCE: Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Haikupoet, consider yourself warned (re: vapourware comment) 165.154.136.7 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then provide some documentation for your claims. So far you have given no reason for anything you say to be accepted at face value. Show me the facts, I'll back down. Threaten me, and I'll ignore you. Put up or shut up. Haikupoet 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Provide evidence of your claim. Do you think the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars on nothing? You are not getting a software demonstration, that I can guarantee. If anything needs to be proven in court, then so be it. Otherwise, I am asking the editors of Wikipedia to remove the libelous (untrue) statement. OpenInfo 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• My evidence, such as it is, is that you are making assertions of notability that are entirely unwarranted. Your product is either of very narrow interest or it is vaporware. Google searches of both the Web and Usenet come up with next to nothing about your product. Therefore it either does not exist or is not remotely notable enough for Wikipedia. Haikupoet 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Haikupoet, You have accused OpenInfo corporation of fraud by the use of the "v" word, and have done so in a public forum that is closely scrutinized and edited. That is enough to warrant legal action against WikiMedia Inc. I trust that the Board Of Directors would be seriously offended by your misuse of Wikipedia resources and your deviant responses. 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun riding the merry go round with you, but frankly I have better things to do than argue with someone who may or may not be who they say they are about the status of a very minor software product. Haikupoet 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's good, because of sure that everyone is tired of arguing with someone about the status of their VERY minor (Haiku sized) penis.

Award

Here's a vandal whacking stick for beating back the trolls :) —Quarl 2006-01-13

You are going to need a bigger stick. Xerves 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To those "wronged" by AFD

Ok, first off, I would like to say that this is one of the better explanations I have seen on this issue. So far what I have seen has been a bunch of links and lots of running around the bush. Now, for personal basis, I believe that YOU have made it a personal vendetta, along with other admins, to kill articles at will. You have also purposly insulted User:Anticitizen_1 which was uncalled for. i have not seen ONE person try to actually help. All I've seen is the automatic "tear it down" and "delete per nom" reasoning on many AfD pages. Come on, "thebroken" gets a WHOLE wiki page? It's nothing more than what "wehatetech" is. Oh, well, it's got Kevin Rose. Everything he does is on here I have seen. My opinion is you are still lying or trying to cover something else up much more to the core of the issue.... I want to know what it is! Kmac1036 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• First off I'm not an admin, just a frequent visitor to AfD. Second, you betray a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Everything is very decentralized; an article only gets this kind of treatment when it comes up on AfD. Rank and file editors nominate, rank and file editors try to form a consensus. There is no one twisting anyone's arm to vote one way or another, and an article's presence on Wikipedia does not and should not imply an endorsement of the article's subject. Third, like it or not your community is creating problems for this community, and I have a tendency to stick around issues like this until they go away. Fourth, I called anticitizen_1 "Dennis". If he can't take an obscure Python reference in the spirit in which it was intended, that's his problem, not mine. Finally, massive distributed guilt trips are not an effective means of getting something put in Wikipedia, which is what I percieve your community's actions as. Believe me, I'd like nothing better than to see this whole mess go away. I'm sure there's plenty of things your community (being by its admission a community of disgruntled sysadmins) could contribute that would be far less obtrusive than a concerted effort to jam a promotional page into Wikipedia. Haikupoet 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• "His problem?" Well, you are not to attack anyone regardless of humor barriers and such. That's good you are NOT an admin, that' means "Anticitizen_1" can push the issue if he so chooses. I lay a guilt trip on nobody. I have seen one big shadow game here. I just call what I see. I will not stand for people bullying nor trying to push others around. You got a position? State it, cite some stuff, or describe your opinion. Leave it at that. Kmac1036 05:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, what it comes down to is that it's not a conspiracy and it's not personal (in fact, I think Zoe was a little out of line pulling Anti's comment off of Deletion Review, but I don't know her reasons and I don't know her). The real issue is that a consensus was reached and the WHT community refuses to abide by it, and frankly what WHT people have done in this affair reflects very poorly on WHT as a whole. I mean, you come off as a well-organized gang of clueless newbies, and you know what sysadmins want to do to clueless newbies as a general rule. (I believe one of your number has already been banned for, what was it, threatening other users?) Haikupoet 05:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rant/Threat from Xerves

• So you want us to bow down like lapdogs and kiss your ring or something? The only way this will end civil if our page is restored and we work TOGETHER on improving the content. You posted on our AfD that you would consider it based on the facts of slashdot/itunes and they were true. I am not going to dispute we are in the largest 100 podcasts (we are not), but we are in the largest 100 of the technology podcasts. You cannot dump a NN on us without criteria and that is exactly what happened. Until we get what we want this will continue. I hope it stays in a civil manner, but when you get in a situation of power you much slowly realize all you are going to be doing is fighting people day in and day out. Wouldn't you rather want to work on something more productive than fighting this out with us over months *Yes months*. Xerves 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't appreciate you adding the word "threat" to the posting. Can you see the problem we have here? You acuse us of not being civil and you are adding a rather harsh word of "threat". I guess you can take it to mean that, but I am trying to be civil about the matter. Xerves 17:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• WEll mabye a German court will just finish this stupid little battle for us. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/20/wikipedia_shutdown/ Xerves 17:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

wehatetech

Xerves is going to get blocked right now for his legal threat. If anybody else want to continue their behavior, they can be blocked for violatins of WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. From looking at their page it looks like they've called off the whole thing anyway, so I suspect we won't be seeing much more of their like. Haikupoet 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Does anyone here have any sense? WHAT THREAT? "Zoe," you have proven yourself to be a prolific censor here on Wikipedia that makes a statement that can easily be twisted out of context. I found that story and posted on his site. I thought it was interesting, to say the least. All we asked for was a reason. All we asked for was the process that was followed. All we asked for was the TRUTH, which you seem dedicated to hiding from us. Kmac1036 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

N.B. - I am NOT done. I am NOT finished. I am NOT leaving until people are treated fairly! I could care less about the wehatetech wiki article. "Xserves" knows more about the Internet and websites then what 30 admins here have forgotten over a whole lifetime. Kmac1036 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You've gotten the truth, repeatedly. Whether or not you want to believe it is your choice. Fact is, Xerves chose to imply a continued crusade against Wikipedia and got whacked for it. If you don't play nice, you have to leave the sandbox. As for his level of expertise in system administration and websites, that's wholly irrelevant. Roger Waters is a musical genius, but that doesn't mean I'd want to collaborate with him if I was a prominent musician, as he's also an arrogant schmuck. The process was followed -- a vote was taken, a consensus assumed formed according to the rules of Wikipedia, and the article was deleted. Everything else has been a rearguardist battle waged by people who didn't know enough about the battlefield. Put it this way -- if Xerves is really the expert you claim he is, he should know enough to learn the lay of the land of a forum -- any forum -- before joining in. Haikupoet 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Dear Haikupoet, I would like to in vite you to my 1st poll, Best DCOM. Thanks! : ) Tcatron565 9:47 am CST 2/04/06

Apple Macintosh

Please fix your links you put up on the Apple Macintosh page. I just spend about two hours fixing every damn link on the entire page the other day, and I'm sort of tired of it. I realize that most or all of them do get you to the right page, but they all say "redirected from..." so and so (meaning, PCI should be Peripheral Component Interconnect... in case you don't know how to link like this, to get PCI linked, do it like this, only obviously with the brackets up against the text: PCI . You also have linked some things that are alreadyy linked on the page. Also, think about rewording things like "Mac-specific" to "proprietary..."

) Dan 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WNRI

Thank you very much for dealing with User:J.sweeton@wnri.com. He is indeed a WNRI employee (I've met him personally), but at least I'm not the only one who realizes that he's removing inconvenient facts. Thanks again for the help. --Analogdemon (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quik (boot loader)

Quik (boot loader) has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. As you've removed the PROD tag, would you consider adding information to the article that shows that this piece of software meets WP:SOFTWARE or any other notability standard? Best regards, Sandstein 14:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Silence on AfD

Hi -- please take another look at the article and/or the AfD; it was on my cleanup list for a long time and seeing it on AfD prompted me to do a rewrite. You were definitely right to nominate it; it was in a horrendous state, but I think the subject is, in fact, notable, and that the article as rewritten can be saved. Thanks, MCB 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

your vote on cool (african philosophy)

I noticed you voted "per Urthogie." I urge you to change your vote to delete so that the article isn't kept. Even though merge is the most sensible option of them all(and its probably what we can do, even if its deleted), it seems like the most pragmatic thing to me to vote as one unified base against this POV fork. If the people who recognize its a POV fork are split between two options, the article will by default be kept. Of course, even if its deleted, we could merge it into the article on cool.--Urthogie 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, It seems you already have. Thank you, and sorry to bother you. PrometheusX303 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Weather Channel

This is not "possible spam" from the network. Charlie the Dog Showcase is a cartoon, not a commercial. Also the network does not engage in "vandalism".

Would The Weather Channel had aired it without the viewers knowledge, they should announce it. I think The Weather Channel paid for their own article to be edited, but had they added spam to their article would cause the network to be in trouble. There is almost 77 percent of the viewers who watch The Weather Channel.

Regards,

--65.54.154.17 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Meteorologist

• You're jumping to a lot of conclusions regarding my edit summary. The reason I called it possible spam is that there seems to be someone pushing this "Charlie the Dog" thing on various TV-related articles -- it's popped up before in some form on WGBH at any rate. At no point did I wish to indicate that it was TWC responsible for it; it would be kind of pointless to advertise a show that doesn't even appear on their schedule anyway. Nor do I believe that a major organization such as TWC would vandalize their own article to begin with. No, what you have here is an anonymous third party who seems to be pushing some kind of viral marketing agenda. Haikupoet 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Try a 72-hour block

There could be lockout on our own Weather Channel staff for 72 hours beginning on Sunday May 7th at midnight.

If they were involved? Perhaps, we could restirct access to Wikipedia from their computers at The Weather Channel at midnight on Sunday, and block their IP's, which they will not edit The Weather Channel and Intellistar article again, I apologize for the trouble that has happened. - Local on the 8's will continue to air during the lockout after Sundays until it expires in 72 hours.

--65.54.154.12 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why? First off, as I said, I don't think this was done by the company or anyone associated with it; it would be pretty idiotic to do so. Wikipedia is open-content and pretty much anyone can do whatever they want with it; the key is that nobody owns an article. The downside of that is that there can be third-party vandals who insert random junk. Also, I'm not an admin or anything; I have no way of searching IP addresses of contributors so not only do I not know who did it, I have no way of knowing. I don't really see an issue that would require a block from corporate computers. Haikupoet 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I will resign from Wikipedia, and will never discuss this with anyone else.

I think that you are a true meteorologist or weatherman. if you fail to not insist the dog character is crap on the air to the entire TWC staff, I will not watch The Weather Channel. Unless, you insist you are not affliated with The Weather Channel in other ways.

Also, I could accuse that radio station of lying, they probably think too soft about that character, which they deny it, but they ignore him, also I have never heard of any other NPR member station putting down nonsense, telling anyone to ignore the character or not watch him. It is sad.

--65.54.155.47 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a meteorologist, just someone who occasionally likes to read weather reports for fun. I deleted the entry on the cartoon because it's not verified on TWC's website, which I'm sure you must agree should be the reference of last resort for such subjects. The show itself is unverifiable -- at the very least you'd think the creators would have a website for it, or if it was an old one a tribute page or an entry on IMDB or something. Haikupoet 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Slippery slopes

I am not sure it is permissible or advisable to argue for or against deletion on the basis of a slippery slope. You really oughtta evaluate the articles on their own merits. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--65.54.155.47 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Editors

Hi,

I think that your comment about Masonic editors was unfair. Although they get a little caught up in their hobby/belief system and like all of us have trouble recognising their biases the ones who commented on the AfD aren't out to hide anything. It also makes it harder to edit articles about the religious objections to Freemasonry when they believe that people are out to get them. I didn't think that your comment helped in that regard.

JASpencer 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NSFW afd

Hey, I wasn't wikilawyering was I? I just want things on wikipedia to be sourced reliably, or at least be confident that if someone tried hard to find a source he'd succeed. In this case it just seemed to me that beyond the basic definition of the term, there isn't much that could be found in reliable sources. I did spend quite a while looking. I am sure you are a more experienced wikipedian than I am, so I'd like to know what you think. nadav 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just think there are certain situations that fall outside the normal research rules. It's such a widely attested word/abbreviation/whatever-you-call-it that it seems it would be sufficient to see how it's used. (Now that might be in violation of WP:NOR, but I don't know that for certain.) Preponderance of the evidence and all that. Haikupoet 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Altbier links removal

Hello. I don't know why you reverted the links I had removed from the altbier article, but please do not do it again. Also, I don't find "oy vey" a very good explanation of your reasons. Thanks for you future cooperation. Mikebe 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know that I won't revert it, but I'm more than happy to talk about it before I do. Haikupoet 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked through your contributions and see that you have done between little and nothing for the beer articles, but you (and several other non-beer contributors) seem to be on a guard for the bjcp. Why is that? (that was not a rhetorical question, I really am curious.) Mikebe 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The main reason is that the BJCP is the main standards organization for brewing (especially home brewing, but also commercial to a certain extent) in the United States. BJCP standards are used heavily in beer competition and are considered authoritative to American homebrewers. May I ask why you have such an aversion to such references? Haikupoet 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? And I'd really appreciate an answer to my question. Mikebe 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I thought I did answer it. And as it happens I'm a homebrewer with a reasonably extensive library on the subject of beer, and that's the sources I have access to, so I have documentation for that sort of thing. I'm sure other countries with large homebrewing contingents have similar organizations with similar standards, and they should probably be here too. But I don't know those organizations, I know the American ones. (And why shouldn't a German style definition be in there as well?) Haikupoet 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had asked why you contribute little or nothing to the beer articles, but keep an eye on bjcp links. I don't see where you've answered that, but I'll go ahead and answer you and hope that you will come back with an answer to my question.

As you know, the page you reverted the link on is not a page concerned with home-brewing. Secondly, as you correctly point out the bjcp is an American organisation and the beer in question is not American. So, I am removing the links because 1. this is not a home-brewing article (feel free to put them in the home-brewing articles where it makes some sense) and 2. because the bjcp is not an authority on foreign (non-American) beers. Creating styles for home-brewing competition is one thing, but using those styles in a general-interest encyclopedia is quite another thing. This very subject has been discussed before -- I am not on a one-man crusade. Mikebe 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, as it happens, I have long had an interest in beer; it's just that I haven't, at least until recently, had much to contribute to the beer articles. As for the issue itself, I think portrayals of how a particular beer style is defined are quite relevant to the article. They don't supplant a primary source, they're additional information. What the BJCP (or any other beer standards body) has to say on a particular style, I think, is relevant in that regard. Haikupoet 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why, when you rarely edit beer articles, you seem to regularly monitor bjcp links, then swope in when you find one deleted.

I agree with you that it is a good idea to give the reader some idea of what to expect when he/she prepares to try a new beer. However, where I disagree is that bjcp style guidelines, which are intended for judging home-brew competitions and nothing else, are the best way to do it. Let me give you an example: if a reader were to click the link to altbier on bjcp, the first thing they would see is this: "Aroma: Clean yet robust and complex aroma of rich malt, noble hops and restrained fruity esters. The malt character reflects German base malt varieties. The hop aroma may vary from moderate to very low, and can have a peppery, floral or perfumy character associated with noble hops. No diacetyl."

"Huh??? Esters? Diacetyl? I thought these beers were pure, not made from chemicals! What are 'noble hops? Are they any different from regular hops?" -- all perfectly logical questions for the average reader.

How exactly is that helfpul? For homebrewers like you, yes, perhaps it means something. However, I would point out to you that according to the bjcp, they have 4060 members, almost all from the US, out of popular of 300 million. Clearly, without argument (these are facts), the bjcp represents a very tiny part of the US population. Furthermore, you may think what you like, however, I can assure you there is nothing like the bjcp in Europe. There are amateur brewers and clubs, but they do not have style guides like the bjcp and members do not promote them as relevant to the general population, as you are doing here.

If you know an alternate source for taste descriptions, fine, let's take a look. But, if you can't find any or there aren't any, let's not confuse the reader with notes that are not at all intended for the casual, non-technical person. Mikebe 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• BJCP guidelines are also used in professional competition, and as far as the size of the membership goes, well, not all beer aficionados are beer judges. Why do I edit beer articles? Why not? It's an interest of mine. So I haven't done much up until now. That doesn't give me any less right to edit articles on the subject than you do. And are you seriously arguing that a technical document is unsuitable as a source? Because if you are, I would say the same logic applies to ISO standards, patent applications, (published) scientific papers, and legal citations. And in any case, on what grounds do you argue that an American style guide serves no practical purpose? Haikupoet 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, bjcp = competitions (I am not aware of any professional ones, but then, I never heard of the bjcp until I came to WP). Whether they are amateur or professional, the style guide is what is called a "competition class", not a general guide to foreign beer styles. Furthermore the bjcp is not a standards organisation, but a competition organisation. It is US-based, US-centric and not recognised outside the US. Furthermore, we have had discussions like this before, interestingly enough with other members of the bjcp fan club, and a WP admin offered this view: "I am forced to conclude that a) the emphasis on American beer style guides is undue weight and thus not NPOV"

As far as the technical document is concerned, are you seriously equating drinking beer with discussing scientific papers and standards?

And finally, I know you won't like to hear this, but for many of the European beers described by the bjcp, they are just plain wrong. So, overly technical and often incorrect as well -- and you think WP should offer this to the general reader? Mikebe 09:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)