User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2008/June

Bulldogs
Hi - not sure why you made the moves, but could you please undo whatever you did to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club and Bulldogs History. The club is not a rugby club, it is a rugby league club, reflected in the full name of the club, nor is it Canterbury Bulldogs, but the Bulldogs. Thank you. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 07:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking the time to discuss your "underlying basis" on the relevant article talk pages prior to making any moves would have saved me much of my own Sunday afternoon time. I've made the relevant reverts, redirects, moves, edits to double redirects and updated all article wikilinks. I think. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 10:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pull your head in. My Sunday afternoon is my business.
 * There was no 'consensus' at the deletion discussion. Bduke suggested renaming the article for deletion as per the main article page (Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club ...); Dhartung said that Bulldogs History needed to be renamed in line with MOS, in reference, as I read it, to the incorrectly capitalised 'H'; The-Pope is obviously an Aussie Rules fan and would, understandably (and not that it invalidates his opinion), not necessarily be aware of the history of the name of a rugby league club. I saw no consensus, only haste. If you are truly interested in consensus, the appropriate place for a name change discussion would be on the talk page of the article where interested parties can participate. You can read all about it at Requested moves. Cheers, &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I care very little about what you do on Sundays. You starting telling me about how I ruined your Sunday afternoon, so I merely pointed out the potential discrepancy.
 * Small details aside, the basic concensus at the afd discussion was that the name "Bulldogs History" is not descriptive enough and must be renamed.
 * Requested moves is not the only place for page move discussions. As a matter of fact, there are probably more page moves and redirects that originate from afd discussions than the backlogged Requested moves. The afd discussion was posted at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia, where editors more familiar with the subject can weigh in on the matter. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Castle, New Rochelle
An article that you have been involved in editing, Castle, New Rochelle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Castle, New Rochelle. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orlady (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vicente Barbieri
I added some data to this article and removed the {importance} tag. Want to check it out? --PeterCantropus (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, his importance has now been established. Thanks! -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Judaism by country
Hi Brewcrewer: My attention was drawn by User that you had nominated Category:Jews and Judaism by country for a merge at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 16, see User talk:IZAK. You can well imagine that as the one one who has worked VERY carefully for years    (and many more like these) to gather up the articles and carefully place them in correct categories, often after serious discussion, I would have greatly appreciated some sort of notification from you about your proposed nomination as a common courtesy, and I would have been, and still remain, very happy to discuss with you either on my talk page or at WP:JUDAISMTALK your concerns and to see how to respond. Thank you very much, IZAK (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to notify the article-creators of my proposed deletions, but once this new automated bot started beating me to it - I stopped. The whole categorization scheme is very complicated and I think I approached it in the wrong way. I will look at it again at a different time. But one thing I would like to point out for now - if I, a regular person (not smart but not to stupid) has a hard time figuring out this scheme, that in of itself is a problem. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Brewcrewer: I am not sure what it is that you are "trying to figure out". Let me ask a dumb question, have you read through the Jew and Judaism articles as a basic primer for understanding how these two notions are different yet connected? Then based on the Jew and Judaism articles, if one wants to get into categories there is Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. In the system of categorization and looking at articles there is a lot of cross-over between the two topics and there always will be, but just as the "Jew" topic cannot swallow and subsume the "Judaism" topic the reverse is also true, and similarly it would be incorrect and counter-productive to squeeze any type of Category:Judaism into a Category:Jews topic. The creation and existence of all the sub-categories under the parent category of Category:Jews and Judaism, such as Category:Jews and Judaism by country that then breaks down into Category:Jews by country and Category:Judaism by country (and these categories are not all in their final stages of development -- I should know because I have been working on them for years) serve as "larger holding concepts" because for example, you will see that almost every country in the Category:Jews and Judaism by country category has in it the relevant sub-category of its own "Jewish history in ____" as you will see collected in Category:Jewish history by country which is equally about Jews and Judaism and sometimes not quite either, so that while "Jewish history in ____" fits nicely into every one of the different countries listed in Category:Jews and Judaism by country, with the inclusion of "Jews" being important here, that just shoving it into a "Judaism" only category would not fit and would require a whole new creation that would inevitably be required if you were to destroy all the sub-categories listed in Category: Jews and Judaism by country. So I beg that you reconsider your nomination and that you bring it for further discussion if need be at WP:JUDAISMTALK and express your concerns to other Judaic editors and get their input (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism), and I would love to fill you in and see if improvements can be made, but I cannot see how Wikipedia can benefit from your proposed nomination to delete a comprehensive category that has taken a lot of time and effort to put together. Thank you for your consideration and interest. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Please answer this hypothetical: An important and historical rabbinical conference takes place in France. Is an article about the conferenced categorized in Category:Jews and Judaism in France, Category:Judaism in France, or both?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay. I would say that the first category it would go in to is Category:Jewish French history, and it could also be placed in Category:Judaism in France as this kind of subject can be dealt with as both a historical and a religious topic. It could perhaps also fit into Category:French rabbis if need be. Jews, Judaism, Jewish history, the History of the Jews in France and rabbis are all vast topics with potential for vast amounts of articles. IZAK (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to your response the eight articles (not the subcategories) in Category:Jews and Judaism in France should also be in Category:Judaism in France. Is that right? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
Thanks for pointing out the deletion of my PROD on Judith Blake, and the curious edit summary. PamD (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton High School Music Program
I have contested the article that has been put up for speedy deletion. Please do not delete it. With the deepest of respects,--mrbsball825 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?
Bluecouve (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Hi Brewcrewer,

You tagged the Poptech page as reading like an advertisement. Curious about what stands out as particularly ad-like. I'd like to revise for a more neutral point of view. I modeled the contribution on the TED (conference) page, which seems to be fine, so I'm unsure of what the issue is. Thanks for your help.


 * There's nothing specific that jumps out at me, but if Poptech can use a Wikipedia article for its brochure (and the way it's written I think it can) that in of itself is a prima facie WP:NPOV problem. Best,-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Baima (language)
Hi, I noticed you moved Baima language to Baima (language). I'm just a little curious, as that I thought that titles for language articles are structured as "XXX language" as described here. Not complaining; just wondering if there are two precedents I need to be aware of. Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know about the language exception. I have moved it back. Thanks for pointing it out to me. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I thought I had done something wrong.  Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The irrepressible Mr Leonid Savin
Unfortunately Mr Savin is one of those bad pennies that just doesn't go away. The page has been reposted because of his activities on Mt Hoverla (as was put on the talk page when it was reposted. So it is not just a matter of reposting old material, but of recovering the old material to add to explanation of what has thrust Savin back into the news.Harrypotter (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't notice your comment on the talk page. I have modified my !vote accordingly. Thanks for letting me know. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Mongolian surnames
Category:Mongolian surnames, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Fr. Silvio Mantelli, sdb
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fr. Silvio Mantelli, sdb, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fr. Silvio Mantelli, sdb is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fr. Silvio Mantelli, sdb, 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) 03:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin
Are you an admin? I couldn't find it myself and am thinking of nominating you. Meisfunny (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
Apologies, I should have thanked you long ago for the barnstar about Featherproof books, that was my first barnstar! Doug Weller (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle little star
... you mean you don't watch every page you touch on your exploding watchlist? :)

Under my preferences and watchlist there are a couple of lines: Add pages I create to my watchlist Add pages I edit to my watchlist Add pages I move to my watchlist Add pages I delete to my watchlist Making sure the middle two are unchecked should save it -- so they don't automagically add every page you touch. That help? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah, I responded in the wrong place. It's over there. PS: Block for not spending every second on wiki :p TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Soda jerk AFD
Hi! I saw that you had done a bit towards closing the Soda jerk AFD by putting the "keep" note on the discussion page. I have undone that change for a few reasons. First off, the AFD is still open a day later. Secondly, the AFD has only been run for a couple of days, and non-admin closures (I'm guessing you aren't an admin, right?) should be at least 5 days old first. The third reason is that you shouldn't close an AFD that you have participated in. As it happens, I believe that this article is going to be a keeper, but it shouldn't be you closing it as keep. If you are interested, there is a section on Non-admin closures that you might find interesting.

Mind you, it might have been that you were trying to do something else, and made a bit of a mistake. In which case, ignore the first paragraph, and read this bit: whatever it was you were trying to do, I've undone it as it didn't quite work right. Would you like to try again?

Or then again, you could have meant to do what you did, were perfectly justied to do what you did, in which case: let me know what incorrect assumptions I made, undo my reversion and I shall go and sit in a corner with a dunce's hat on ;-).

Cheers, StephenBuxton (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, but I was not mistaken in anything I did. I have a lot of experience with afd's and I'm quiet familiar with WP:NAC. The afd was a runaway WP:SNOW, it had absolutly no chance of getting deleted at the time that I closed it. The one delete !vote was entered prior to the drastic overhaul of the article. After someone reverted my closure, instead of fighting it, I just !voted keep, and waited for the next reasonable editor familiar with afd closures to close it. Best, -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I closed it. Was a clear-cut snow. I didn't bother undoing the revert, I just closed it. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job!-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * reverting = too many clicks ;) PS -- my personal problem is doing well this week. Hope your team is as well. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think my team isn't doing just as well as yours?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know who your team is so I have no idea how they're doing. For your sanity's sake, I hope it's not the Muts, Royals, Seattle or the Rockies. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would never reveal my loyalties, but one thing I can say - my team is only 3 games behind in the win column behind your 200 million+ behemoth. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's one of three. Not the Muts because you couldn't razz the Yankees payroll in that case. I'm not going to say what I think to possibly out the city, but I have a gut feeling. As for the other team, they've got a great manager. :) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I wouldn't rule out the Mets that quickly. I know very little about them, but I do know that although they have a high payroll, their wins in proportion to their payroll are better than then the team that has a major case of second-round-of-playoffs-phobia. Also, I would like to point out that in baseball the eighth inning comes before the ninth inning.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the 8th/9th? I don't actually mind the Muts -- first baseball memory is the 86 Series since the Yanks were so awful at the time. As for Mets wins and payroll, I think they set the standard, Worst Team Money Could Buy. Good book by the way. However I seem to recall it was the Muts pulling a Knicks-esque choke last year. I want them to do well because I want Willie to keep his job. I think the Yankees' issue is not player ability but poor leadership. What exactly is Dave Eiland going to tell Andy and Moose? "Hi I know you have ore wins in a season then I had in my career but listen to me?" I also think Joba will learn better from those two. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (cutting through the sports-talk to say) Glad it's all sorted now. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor review/Avruch
Why are you canvassing here, here, and here for people to comment on this particular editor review? Typically doing so is frowned upon. Useight (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I did nothing wrong. There's no argument that I'm trying to influence (which is what WP:CANVASS has in mind). These three admins I know are involved in rfa nominations and I was basically pointing them to my opinion that he/she should be nominated. I could have just plopped my opinion on each of their talk pages without a link to the ER, and then there would nothing to "frown" about. So there's no reason to make fuss if I gave my opinion in an unconventional manner. As a matter of fact, why don't you chime in as well? :-)-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you, just wondering. No need to get defensive. Useight (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. So are we best friends again?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Useight (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I just noticed that you're an admin, and I recently came across something that needs admin powers. I think that Chris Shelton (baseball) should be moved to Chris Shelton. The latter lists the former and another that has no article and clearly fails WP:BIO. What do you think?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a couple of quizzes for one of my undergraduate courses at the moment, I'll take a look in a few minutes. Useight (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Brew, I agree and I did it. Happened to be following Rule No. 5 of the Keeperpedia. On a baseball theme, Minute Maid Park is ugly. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. I love our conversations. None of us are ever really sure what the other is trying to say. It's really funny, imo. Anyway, your boy Joba looks to be enjoying Minute Maid Park. Much to the suprise of the idol-worshippers, he didn't hit two home-runs in his two at-bats. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, he eked through that inning. I think he has potential byt I'm not expecting 1986 Clemens from him. As far as I'm concerned, mediocrity from Joba is better than "best" from Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy. I love our conversations too. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant cats
Hi Brewcrewer, many thanks for the advice. However, it does state on that "Players in this category should also be left in ." Is this correct, or does it need changing? GiantSnowman 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SUBCAT states why. Category:Canadian men's international soccer players is an incomplete subcategory of Category:Canadian soccer players, so it makes sense to put a page under both categories. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well as Chanheigeorge points out, Wikipolicy would suggest that articles should be in both categories, and so I'm probably going to keep the articles as they are. Many thanks for raising the issue though. Kind regards, GiantSnowman 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi!

Thanks for the barnstar, but well, the articles are still in phase of development. Moreover, I've as of now created many articles as I realized that the shoulder dystocia article was in a very bad shape, and so is the entire category related to obstetrics. Actual organization and further tagging would take some time. Also, I'm having to suffice with only one textbook, which is not providing all the definitions (though, I know them myself, I'd require them for verifiability purpose). I wouldn't really distinguish much between "Childbirth" and "Obstetrics". The latter is a technical term (a field of study and practice), whereas the former is a layperson term for a process, and also have to admit that didn't really take the effort to search for the most appropriate category. I'd agree though that the category "Childbirth" is more likely to be searched for than "Obstetrics".

Thanks for the interest in those articles, and your attention.

Regards.

—Ketan Panchal  t aL K  08:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

prod on Wan Fan
I came across this article while Stub-sorting, and it seemed a bit harsh to PROD such a new article for lack of sources (considering the huge amount of totally unreferenced stuff already on WP... yes, I know WP:Othercrapexists, but even so) so I unprodded it and added an unreferenced instead. PamD (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I almost never prod new unsourced articles, but this smells hoaxy. The name of the subject coupled with the lack of contrib history of the creator justified, imo, following the opening statement in Verifiability -  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" - literally. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

QOB
Hello, what you've done does not help. "Almost every popular actress and singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called" - that's the problem, that's POV and that's the original research. Can you cite sources for this claim? You can'r, and nobody can. Because it's not an official name or something.

Every person who sees success in some field is occasionally described as the King/Queen of that field. But the problem is that journalists can sometime call someone who is moderately successful King, and ignore the success of someone who is even more successful.

That's the problem of POV in this case, newcomers like Priyanka Chopra who are not even that popular are described as Queens in sources. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some of the biggest female names in the history of Bollywood like Hema Malini, Rekha, Nargis, are not even mentioned. That's the hoax, inaccuracy, POV, OR that appear in newspapers, magazines and fansites, but cannot appear in an encyclopedia. Journalists cite whomever they want to praise and make them look good, but overlook others. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there are no better and worse, but only facts.

That's why this lists is misleading. It will be sourced, then Priyanka will be described as Queen, and Hema Malini -- not. That's the exact POV.

In addition to that, the term itself is unsourced, there is no source that will say that - "QOB is a special term..." - because it's just a fansite/magazine/tabloid way to praise people. That's why I think it should be deleted.

Do you agree on that point? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If everyone knows that every popular singer/actress is considered the QOB then it shouldn't difficult to track down some sort of cite for that fact.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no sources for that claims, because it's not a term as I said - it is used only to describe people who are some people who are successful in thir job. Many newspapers usually write gushing comments. Do you really think it's encyclopedic? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This conversation belongs at the afd discussion page. I have copy and pasted this conversation there with my response. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Saadé
I added some references to Jacques Saadé. --Eastmain (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS technology
Just a comment on the difference between summarizing and synthesizing. The Technology in The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS deletion debate inspired this comment, but I am not making any comment as to which is which in that article. IMHO, the key lies in the thesis of the article. If the thesis of the article has been stated by others - i.e. it is verifiable, then it is summarizing - if there is more than one thesis or view on the article, then summarizing is presenting the different views neutrally. Synthesizing, OTOH, is where either there are statements explaining the summary that are not in published materials, where the thesis of the article is not in published materials, or (and this is the most difficult) there is an implied thesis i.e. by reading the summaries one is lead to a conclusion or a conclusion seems obvious from the summary, but that conclusion is not in the summarized material. Just my 2 cents -- Trödel 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I might agree with that. But what exactly do you see as the thesis in the article? I don't really see any sort of thesis. It's just bringing together different situations of the interaction between technology and the LDS Church. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the article more closely now - and feel it is most likely original research. The article is the view of "Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves," rather than a summary of others review of primary sources. See WP:RS. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should be a summary of secondary and tertiary sources. The no original research policy states it this way, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."


 * Statements in the article like
 * "The LDS Church administers the technological affairs of its Sunday service, missionary, and temple programs under its Information & Communications Systems department, while also warning that abuse of various forms of media pose a threat to society." I know this seems self evident from the primary sources provided, but it is still a conclusion of the purpose and variety of the interaction of the church with technology that needs to be cited to a secondary source.
 * "This church supports the development of technology by owning and strongly funding some universities..."
 * "As a way of furthering its temple work programs and as a service to the community, the LDS church operates..."


 * In general the article is completely self resourced see WP:V.


 * Note - that I do not know if there are sufficient secondary sources to justify the article - as currently written - I would stand by my delete vote. However, http://bakercountypress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1459&Itemid=1 is an example of a good secondary source that could be used with the article.


 * To answer your first question, the thesis I see (part stated part implied) is: The relationship between technology and the Church has evolved over the years to play a prominent role in how it distributes its message and fulfills its mission, while also warning that abuse of technology poses a threat to society. -- Trödel 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops!
Sorry about the double vote there. I must've thought I was in Chicago and could vote more than once. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * or you though you were in Florida were neither count :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Didier
I think no murder was a scary and notable before Didier died and no murder in the area has been as notable since. You hit nail on the head with your comments. Presumptive (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. By the way, if both articles get deleted (and they might) you can always merge and redirect the whole thing to Rockford, Illinois. You won't run into any problems there. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes
It would be great if you could provide a rationale for your merge statement on the Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes deletion debate. --  tariq abjotu  20:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be that great. There's enough filllibustering on that discussion page, and the eight editors that !voted merge before me explained the rationale more then sufficiently. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

picky, picky
The people are at it again trying to delete the murder of Joseph Didier! Presumptive (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New message
Hello Brewcrewer, I noticed that you had redirected the page of Kambakth Ishq to Eight by Ten, and was wondering why. Apart from having Akshay Kumar has the male in lead, those two films have nothing in common. The former is directed by debutante Sabir Khan while the latter by Nagesh Kukunoor. Take a look at the film's pages here and here!! Kumar also has different co-stars in both those films. Apparently, when Kambakth Ishq was first announced, a page was created for the film. However, since the film hadn't begun filming yet, it was nominated for deletion, and later on deleted. Now that the film is almost set to begin (* in a couple of days/weeks), I was going to ask an administrator to restore the page again.. maybe even creating the page again. Unfortunately, when I try to do so, it redirects back to Eight by Ten. Could you do something about it?? --Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 19:56, 22 June 2008
 * I reverted my redirect. My reason for doing so is that the article begins "Eight by Ten....." so I thought that this was just the Indian name for the film. Sorry. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

GEWEX
The article was about 1.5 hours old when you marked deleted it, as with any article one needs to combine information from several sources, I requested a wait and it was deleted. The best place to start an article about a source is from that source, and then work from that source to other areas. The article was rewritten in my own words but needed further wikification. Fortunately, the information was saved. Sometimes wikipedians behave like brats, this is one instance where if you read the history of the article you would know that it was evolving quickly. It was clear that much of the information on that page was obsolete and needed to be changed anyway, but it was the best starting source. BTW, I don't see a policy in Wiki that says one needs to construct an entire article elsewhere before beginning edits in Wiki-space. Patience is a virtue some people don't have. I am really surprised at the number of fast-guns on wikipedia that think articles are made in a blink of an eye.Pdeitiker (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[P.S. Seems to me reading this talk page you have a problem with screwing up others articles also]
 * Uh, I tagged it as a copyright violation. Your violation of a copyright gives me lots of ammunition for a similar uncivil retort, but I'll hold my tongue. However, I'm happy to see that all the article issues were sorted out. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncivil would be destroying peoples work affording unnecessary time to correct. Civil would be to say wait an hour and see how the articles evolution is doing, or dropping a note on someones page hey dude I noticed this looks like copying from a single website. The articles issues were 'sorting' out when you tagged it. Its easy to come up with an excuse after the fact, it takes wisdom to slow down and observe first. Fortunately firefox saves a backup copy of these things, so its only a few moments to correct. BTW, if you see something in an article that is a copyright violation sofixit.  Since I have been on wikipedia, I have edited several 1000 times, but I have never targeted an article for deletion, even if I think a page is crap, I generally post a message on the discussion page - why does this article existe? But I look on your talk page here and it looks like you go out of your way to delete others pages. Maybe you need help, got issues?Pdeitiker (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar
Hey,

Just thought I'd say thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated :--) I'm not a bot - just human, with a bit of time on my hands, thanks again :-) Pahari Sahib  02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability tagging
Hi there. I totally dig and respect the cleanup work you're doing to help improve Wikipedia. But...is there a way to get you to stop tagging the manhwa and manhua articles for notability at the present? See, until about a week ago these articles were inadvertently not covered by any Wikiproject, and since getting that oversight fixed, I've forgone quite a bit of sleep to undertake an enormous effort to start getting these articles back on track though the Comics WikiProject World Comics work group. Just about every single article in the categories could potentially be tagged for notability, because most are poorly-written stubs. It appears these tags show up most often on new articles, and since a large portion of the articles in the categories are named incorrectly, I'm having to move them as I find them, which means lots of "new" articles. I don't have time right now to "fix" the article content as well, but they're all getting tagged with a brand-new stub template specific to the category, so they'll be tracked and improved as the project really gets underway. The notability tag is kind of threatening (though that's not its intent) and I worry will lead to being tagged for speedy delete or prod of afd or something, and if I have to stop and deal with each of those individually, I'll never get anything done, LOL -- I haven't gotten much sleep lately. Is there a way to exclude these articles from notability tagging for the time being? Thanks for listening and I hope I make some kind of sense! :) -- hamu♥hamu ( TALK ) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

April showers
Thanks for improving my latest creation so quickly. Apparently it was more wanted than I thought. --arkuat (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

QOB
The WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you.

The Zee Cine Award is names Zee Cine Award for Queen of Bollywood, which you can create if you want, and not just QOB. In doing so, you are trying to create false notability using unrelated factors.

Secondly, the tags speak for themselves; they had been added before but someone removed them. It is a Hoax, because it is not a term, but still you claim it's a term. The fact that someone is called QOB doesn't make the term notable or valid. If it is a term, cite sources. It contains POV of journalists, that's why it is POV.

The notability issue is more than precise and valid, because, as it was said nth times: it is not a term, and there is no evidence that this is a term, there is no source describing its definition. All the sources only describe the actresses as QOB, nothing else. If you answer and cite what Bollywood is and what the criteria for becoming one are, so it will be notable.

It is not factually accurate because there may be many other actresses who are described Queens, and in fact, we don't know why they are described like this, what it means. Could you answer?

as for the text, "However, the terms 'queen of Bollywood' or 'Bollywood queen' have been generically applied to many popular Bollywood actresses and singers." - POV, OR, unsourced. By writing this, you are trying to invent a definition. You are not here to conclude things.

Here are the explanations. Please do not revert others' edits. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stadium notability
My general criteria is if the stadium hosts a club in a country's top division, that the stadium is notable, particularly in smaller countries. Beyond that, it would have to have hosted an international match. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Julie Hosler
Userfying this page is not appropriate, unless you happen to be the lady in question. But writing a new article called, for example, The Cucumber Incident or The Cucumber Assault might be valid. Or, to be fair, it might still be non-notable; clearly one can only judge that after article submission. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 08:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doane Outlaws
Could you change Doane Outlaws to Doan Outlaws? I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKroscavage (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I think that after you accumulate 100 edits you will see a "move" tab (which moves pages) next to the "history" tab at the top of each Wikipedia page. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKroscavage (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I wrote that Moses Doan gave Rahl the infamous note about crossing the Delaware can I add a tag to that? like more proof needed? TKroscavage (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out my latest edit. Is that what you intended?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks TKroscavage (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any advice for my References? I added a section on Bucks county 1776 because later I would like to discuss how local events influenced the gang. Earlier you asked me what I was trying to do with the redirects. I was thinking that if someone did a search for "Moses Doan" or "the Plumbstead Cowboys" http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png Bold text they could be redirected to the "Doan Outlaws" Thank TKroscavage (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What specific advice do you want for the references? I made Moses Doan and Plumstead Cowboys redirects as you wished. For future reference, the way to make redirects are simple. Just start a page by the term that you want redirected. When you start a page or when you edit a page you get a bunch of tabs right above the empty writing space. Smack in middle of the tabs is a tab that looks like this: #R. Click on that tab, enter the link, and you have a redirect. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer: I don't have any specific questions. just trying to understand Wikipedia standards. I'll keep an eye on what others are doing. The Exceptional Newcomer Award you gave me really made me feel good about what I was doing. Thanks TKroscavage (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. The article that you created was very interesting. Please don't hesitate to ask me about anything Wiki related. No question is too stupid. We need editors like yourself around here. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer: I don't know why the Buried does not show, in this link *Two million dollars in [|Buried treasure] TKroscavage (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. Sorry, but I'm not getting what the problem is. Please explain. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what you see when you view the page "Two million dollars in treasure" not this "Two million dollars in Buried treasure" TKroscavage (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK, fixed. If I may impart my advice for a sec - It would be a higher quality article if instead of a bulleted list, the Doan Myth section would be in a story format. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please, feel free to impart any advice. My goal is to contribute a good article. I won't be insulted by any advice. I posted a link to this page on a Doan family blog I hope an expert will help out with the facts. For me I just heard the tales. I'm just now cracking books.

If I ever finish this article I would like to start a new one on (Gideon Olmsted-The Olmsted affair-the battle of Rittenhouse Square) but I don't know what I would call it. TKroscavage (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ekvílibríum
You marked this page as being unreferenced (which it may be considered being). The sources of the information are of course the liner notes and track listing on the album case. I have been looking for the proper way to address this on WikiProject_Albums as well as Template:Ref but I have no real clue as to how to properly declare the source for album info. Do you have any suggestion? It should be noted that even Madonnas album Ray of Light has no sources for the personnel section and track list. How do you propose that I proceed to have you agree to removing the unreferenced tag? Sebras (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ray of Light article has a source for the personal section and track listing. Music isn't my area of expertise (I'm not an expert at anything, but whatever), but I do know that an article must have source that at least proves that the item described exists. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I have just added a link to a review (actually to All music guide as they happened to a have a review!). It doesn't list the complete personnel section, but some of it. Is this motivation enough to remove the tagging, or do you require additional sources to do so? Sebras (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I removed the tag. I don't require anything, I'm not in charge over here. For future reference, if you disagree with any tag on an article (except an afd or a speedy on an article that you created) you can remove it. You don't need the permission of the tag-placer. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I know. I know I could have removed the tag myself, but if I can convince the tag-placer that I have alleviated the issue the article had once then I have most probably improved the article. Thanks for reviewing my page!Sebras (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

SBC Rizal
There's someone who is probably vandalizing the page.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoj Oirgela (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu Engineering Colleges
Hi, You tagged the article for sources. Anna University website the article is refereing to is the Tamil Nadu Government owned University to which all the colleges are affiliated to. I guess that is pretty reliable source. Docku (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think government websites can be considered reliable third-party. But I live in the US, so maybe I'm too jaded :-). But if you disagree with the tag, please don't hesitate in removing it. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know it is sometimes hard to form an opinion of some sources from other countries. It also gets complicated especially when the website doesnt present itself to be appealing. :) Docku (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Sauber
He was born in Mukachevo ,Mukachevo situated Bzakarptia and that in the past was controled by Hungary. My english not very good i'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razs (talk • contribs)


 * Oh, I see. Thanks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl Guardino
As other have noted earlier on this page -- you are very eager to delete. Please hold off. The references that I cited clearly indicate Carl has quite a lot of influence. Anyone who runs the lobby group that all major Silicon Valley companies are part of ( Silicon Valley Leadership Group ) is clearly notable.

Give things a few days - then ask the question - a few days will not change anything but will lead to less annoyance. Lastly, you are proposing to delete a newbies page 1 minute after the last edit. Anon-liberal (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gong: Floating Anarchy Live
Hi Brewcrewer. Thanks for the feedback on the "Floating Anarchy Live" page I created. I created this page from the LP/Vinyl that I own, and I'm looking for advice on where I might be able to address your tag. I's my first new page on Wikipedia so I'm looking to learnn.

Thanks, Irae4dfc (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added an allmusic.com link (in the infobox) which I guess satisfies the primary sources requirement. Let me know what you think of my other edits to the article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks much better. Appreciate your patience and support. Irae4dfc (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Vs. Legend
You tagged this supposed film with - you may like to know you were dead right. I looked a bit further, found no hint of the film or director on IMDb, noted that the "official website" was on Myspace, and PRODded it as a hoax. Within five minutes of being notified, the author (the supposed director) blanked the page, and it has gone via to the great hoax-yard in the sky. I'm not surprised to learn from the "director"'s user page that he's 15. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)