User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2008/October

New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare  contact meMy work 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenenbaum
A tag has been placed on Tenenbaum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Yecril (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry the whole mess happened. In my partial defense, here in Milwaukee nobody would misspell "Tannenbaum" that way, and it really does look implausible to me. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Brewcrewer, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all,, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala
Please see my comments there, particularly this one: reliable sources do exist for the basic facts, at the very least.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Abu Qaswarah
Hi. Yeah, I saw that you had done that. Thanks, I like the article much better now. The Swedish intelligence bit was just floating around sort of on its own before you went to work on it. Thumbs up from me. Manxruler (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Categoy:Members of al-Qaeda in Iraq
A tag has been placed on Categoy:Members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  Altairisfar  talk 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

College Square Mall
I don't think that redirecting to the town would be a good idea since there's another mall with the same name in Iowa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Echelon Studios new article
Dear Brewcrewer I would like to invite you to check the new article I wrote about Echelon Studios. As I can see you are a very experienced editor and I would like you to check my article and tell me what do you think about it and what should it need to avoid it deletion. You can found it on my user page under the name of 'Echelon Studios Draft'. Thank you very much. I will appreciate your help. - Eric-1555 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense ...
But this was not appropriate. I deleted part of my own comment before anyone else had responded. You don't get to revert me just because you had generated a sentence of text and then had an edit conflict. Please delete the text I generated and deleted and that I temporarily struck through out of a courtesy and then do what you want with your own response. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not think it was a big deal either way. I thought you removed it because you thought it was too pointy. I figured I'm not insulted and it's just a waste to reconfigure my comments. In any case, you can do whatever you want with your comments, I won't bother with them. If it causes disconnected responses on my part, so be it. You get my point. Sorry for the miscommunication. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK its not a huge deal, don't worry about it. I'll leave it striked through.  It was the edit summary that ticked me off more so than the result of the edit.  I didn't like the idea that you felt it was appropriate to make the call on what I get to keep in my response simple because you were inconvenienced -- had you already responded, btw, I would not have removed the text.  Anyway it rubbed me entirely the wrong way.  But clearly its a stupid non-issue in reality.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyrexiophobia
Recreation of several times deleted nonsense page, copied from nosense floating in internet. `'Míkka>t 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, 15K of duplicated nonsense. If you became inrerested in the subjet of phobia, I recommend you to read talk archives of -phobia page, as well as read -phobia `'Míkka>t 05:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want not distract other people from doing more serious and useful tasks, please feel free to do whatever you wish. MAy be you have a point, but I am just sick and tired strugglin with phobia nonsense for 4 years now. `'Míkka>t 05:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I took liberty to save you trouble, since I know what to write. `'Míkka>t

Outright Thievery
Hi,

I'm thinking of borrowing the basis of your signature for my own nefarious use, but I thought best to ask you if that's ok first (in case you notice in due course and come after me with a hammer).

Cheers,

OBM blah blah blah 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean use the term "yada yada"?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nooo, I mean the colours and the italicism... in fact, everything but the yada yada. I know it's not exactly unique but I thought I'd better just mention that I was thinking of using yours. Cheers, OBM blah blah blah 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. If you were gonna take yada yada I would have to come after you with a hammer :-) but everything else I don't really care about. It's not unique. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  one brave  monkey  16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Mine was the first talkpage to get the new sig!-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

comment
I found these comments of yours very convincing, at least in this particular case.

Normally, I wouldn't leave someone a note, simply because I agreed with them. But one comment particularly caught my eye:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * ...editors perpetuate this error in the afd discussion. They come to an afd discussion looking to spew the correct wikilinked alphabetical guideline, thinking that an afd discussion is a contest about who knows wikipedia guidelines the best. That's wrong. An afd discussion is for editors to have a discussion...
 * ...editors perpetuate this error in the afd discussion. They come to an afd discussion looking to spew the correct wikilinked alphabetical guideline, thinking that an afd discussion is a contest about who knows wikipedia guidelines the best. That's wrong. An afd discussion is for editors to have a discussion...


 * }

I completely agree with this. Is this the standard of behavior you now aim to live up to? If so let me offer my hearty congratulations! Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Since I don't want to continue dragging the discussion out on that AfD (perhaps we should shrink it into a box?) I'll continue here. I agree with much of what you are saying and I don't care so much about "winning" the argument - I'm often on the losing end :) - as I do about making sure we maintain a quality encyclopedia. Yes Wikipedia is about building consensus, and yes we clearly utilize our "common sense" all the time when making arguments, editing entries, interpreting guidelines, etc. etc.  I'm also no fan of constant wikilinking to various policy/guideline pages in discussions, but sometimes these guidelines are apropos.  The problem I have goes back to your very first statement: You seem to be saying that the consensus of editors at an AfD determines whether or not the loss of the BLP will make the encyclopedia "subpar".  OK I'll accept that for arguments sake.  But then you suggest that the individual editorial judgment is made on the basis of "common sense".  I'm not claiming that only "experts" are allowed to make these types of judgments, not in the least. But I am suggesting that applying variously measurable criteria is necessary for determining notability when we are mostly not experts - as is usually the case. The notability guidelines help us do just this.
 * Unless a living person is notable to the extent that Wikipedia would be considered a subpar encyclopedia with[out] the article, the article should be deleted at their request.

Lets look at this example. Since you voted delete I'm assuming you think that Wikipedia will be no worse for not having an entry on Rick Ross (since that is the guideline you are applying here). But what tangible evidence do you base that on? More importantly what means does the closing admin have to compare your "common sense" decision to someone else's argument based upon a rough sketch of Ross' publicity, and/or his notability in academic work on areas related to the "cult-wars", Deprogramming, New religious movements, etc.? My general argument here is that we need to base decisions upon criteria that can be measured to enough of an extent that these decisions stand the test of at least some time. If its a matter of my or your "common sense" then it amounts to little more than a whim in the long run -- then the AfD really becomes a vote of intuitions. The guidelines and policies let us organize our rationale for doing X, Y or Z, and keep us from many a slippery slope. They also allow us to comprehend to greater and lesser degrees on what basis a certain decision is made. So sure anyone can decide they want to comment in any which way at an AfD, but in the end I don't think its productive to let people decide based upon "common sense" alone what would or would not make the encyclopedia "subpar".PelleSmith (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that my newfangled criteria for blp's whose subject requested deletion is problematic and therefore I'm willing to adopt another's better proposal. One thing for sure, common decency dictates that there should be a higher standard for these subjects than the regular notability guidelines. As for my proposal, what you are so worried about should take care of itself at the afd discussion. Usually one with more expertise on the subject will make a better argument pro and con and that experts argument will hold more swaying power. The person that is not really an expert on the subject will make a weak argument which will hold less swaying power. Additionally, under my proposal, the "subparness" will not be the only factor in a deletion determination. The factor should be considered along with other factors on a sliding scale test. Other factors should be the extent of notability, the reasons for the request (are they legitimate?), the extent of the harm (is is that the person used to do porn or was once seen picking his nose?), and other circumstances surrounding the situation. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Al G
I ask that you be more cautious when wiping out references and text. I think you may have done it at the Alan Greenspan article more than once, but the one I just fixed was one where you had wiped out that Harry Reid criticized Greenspan for supporting Bush's tax cuts, you said the reference didn't even mention Reid; what it did mention however was that Greenspan supported the tax cuts. I'd say be a bit more flexible in your review as sometimes the references don't necessarily sit neatly where one would like them, and you might need to read the text back a bit or forward a bit to understand how the reference applies. DanielM (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you don't mind, please provide a diff on specific edits that you have a problem with. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)