User talk:Brewcrewer/Archives/2009/April

Photos
Another advert.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions on Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop
Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

James Lindsay
Lindsay has recently nominated for deletion. I thought I should let you know because you edited the article quite a bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Knuckleball pitchers
I'm sorry that I didn't realize that you hadn't seen the CfD. I saw it just a short time before it closed and it was marked as deleted before I had a chance to put my thoughts down. It was relisted after pointing out to the closing admin that the CfD had never been tagged properly on the category, which would account for why you may not have seen it. I had assembled some facts on the definingness of the knuckleball pitcher at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers, planning to use it for DRV. Take alook and let me know if there are any other materials available to help make it clear that knuckleball pitchers are not just perople who happen to throw a knuckleball, but tend to be characterized by the pitch itself. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that it went through cfd because I was on a wikibreak. I'm quite amazed what had transpired. The close contrary to the clear consensus was nothing less then disgraceful.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had tried to communicate the issues to the closing admin, but he seems to be taking some sort of wikibreak of his own. Looks like the DRV to overturn the result will be filed shortly. Alansohn (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can you please send me a link to the DRV when it starts? Thanks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Garcia
I wasnt sure on that one, but had already hit revert by the time I thought to check. Thanks, Ono (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr
yeah I know, dont think the last one was a revert, kept in the extra info and brought the weight down, if you think it is i will self revert, let me know. (and really, welcome back) Nableezy (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and if you wanted to get in that AfD for the game 6 article, its Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, but in all seriousness let me know what you think of it Nableezy (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert at 3rr, but as far as I know it's any revert, it doesn't have to be the same full revert at each turn. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe, if somebody wants to report they can, wouldnt mind taking an enforced break for a while. honestly, kind of happy you back in the fray, i dont mind discussing, even arguing, as long is it isnt with irrational people. Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by an afd for that basketball game. I had my keep all lined up but there's no afd. And enforced wikibreaks are the best. It's like getting out of life sentence in jail. I actually came out of my break earlier then planned. My exams ended earlier then I thought and I was bored. Someone explained to me off-line how to get around the block and I did that. I'm not going to tell you how to get around it in case you want to use it one day. For my next wikibreak I'll just have to get blocked.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I told you I was going to make the article you said you would probably put it up for deletion, out of an intense jealousy for all that is Chicago. As far as blocking, when the time comes I know how Im gonna get perma-blocked (my secret tho) Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget afd, that's a csd. It's nonsense and vandalism. But serious for a sec, that's a great article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to take care of this but you got me on 1RR for that article. See the trouble you caused? Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're on 1rr. I didn't know that. I'll now take full advantage of that. Hmm, what can i shove into the article? Btw, you have only yourself to blame for getting into an 3rr. No sane person would ever edit that article. You're just begging for heartache and stress. The revert that I made was, I think, the first edit I made to that article in weeks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True that, not really a commandment but a suggestion I said I would try to adhere to, so if do something nuts I might be inclined to forget the 1RR. Best off just waiting until I leave (soon) to make the article the truth. Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
hope your exams went well. Sorry your "ace" didn't have a better game today - at least they won for me yesterday :) StarM 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Star. I hate that guy. Don't get me started on that baby.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was not a good baseball weekend, but I stand by my earlier thoughts - 140 games to go. Too early to panic. Panic int he first month in the NFL because that matters, this doesn't. Have a good night! StarM 03:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is a -men. 162 games. The panic is driving me nuts. StarM 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a major part of the "panic" is the mounting frustration on the Mets fans realizing that this team has the same heartless and gutless characteristics they had the last three years so this season will finish the same way it finished the last three years. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * good point. I think the reason last season didn't gut me was we fell out of it so early. I just don't see how extra pressure makes for better play. Odd StarM 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the cleanup and requesting protection
i hate trolls! StarM 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

death march
you should voice your concerns on the article's talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Brewcrewer! I have posted a response to your comment regarding your concerns re NPOV at Lydda Death March. I've gone through the bibliography of the article and cannot find evidence to support your claims that "All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans" and "Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims." Could you please respond and explain to me what I'm missing? The article has preliminary approval for the DYK page and I don't want the tag up there when it appears on the main page. So the matter is somewhat pressing. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 06:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Tiamut, I noticed your detailed response at the article talkpage. It looks like something that would requires proper analysis and research on my part and would take some time. The problem is my eyes are closing on me and someone has kept me very busy at different threads for the last while. I must go to sleep now. I will try to find time tomorrow to see if my preliminary analysis was incorrect. In any case, if my concerns are indeed incorrect surely you can find a consensus that would be contrary to my opinions. Besides, as a somewhat experienced DYK-nommer, I know the whole shindig will take atleast 5 days, leaving ample time for analysis and discussion. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Brewcrewer. Well as I wrote to you on the talk page, Lydda Death March is already in the DYK queue meaning it should appear in the next couple of days. That was the fastest approval yet I've had for a DYK nom (it will be my 33rd, thank you very much ;) and I was quite surprised by the speed with which it was picked up. As a result, and because neither you nor NoCal100 have made any substantive objections regarding NPOV (sorry, my opinion, but I believe that an RfC would bear that out actually), I boldly removed the tag. As I ask on the talk page there, I'm not averse to having it readded if when identifying the NPOV problems you perceive, you take the trouble to outline how they may be corrected in practical terms. If there is no such suggestion, the tag would seem rather vindictive, rather than policy-based and aimed towards article improvement. Have a good night's rest.  T i a m u t talk 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to update you, I went ahead and opened an RfC on the issue to get some outside views and make sure I'm not letting my own POV run rampant over what others might see as legitimate concerns. You are welcome to participate after you'd had a good sleep. See you there.  T i a m u t talk 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

massacre of the names
would you mind taking a look at this and letting me know what you think? Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)