User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2008/February

Hello
Its nice to know we share the same DOB. Would look forward to collaborate with you on something, if ever get the chance.  U z EE   (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.-- brew crewer  (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,  Basketball one  10  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, -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew  crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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. :-) -- brew crewer  (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? -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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? -- Menti  fisto  01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you do about the 100s of such articles on video games then? -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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? -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you agree then please remove the prod tag. -- Menti  fisto  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? -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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. :-) -- Menti  fisto  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. -- Menti  fisto  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, ... 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, and perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of editors on this fledgling project ... Happy Editing! &mdash; 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 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 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 ,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the   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 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, ... 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! —  14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Regarding this edit, please see WP:HATNOTES. 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!

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. -- brew  crewer  (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. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * HUH?-- brew crewer  (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)

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 ;-). -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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

Re: thanks
Hey no problem. And congrats on passing your "initiation" :) Regards. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  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. -- brew crewer  (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 TRAVELLINGCARI My 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. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I'll see it in the morning, bedtime for this bozo :) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 06:12, 23 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. -- brew crewer  (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)

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. -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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. -- brew crewer  (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)