User talk:Brian G. Crawford/Archive 1

Archive 1 of User_talk:Brian_G._Crawford

Chimera
It would be a kindness to discuss major changes, even to a minor article, before you carry them out. The question of what Chimeras to include has been discussed at some length, and, for the moment, we are including references to chimaeras which are notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere in WP, with a link; especially (as some of these are) uses of Chimera/Chimaera in a unique sense, or as a proper name - some readers will be looking for them.

All editors are of course free to reopen that discussion; but experience has shown that cruft shows up less rapidly, and is removed more smoothly, if we have explicit sections, and standards (as comments) stated on the page. Regards, Septentrionalis 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gundamcruft
Dude what do you have against Gundam? It's been around for thirty years, and there is a much larger population of fans then a small population, we are talking about thousands if not more Gundam fans, and you know, if you're gonna delete all fictional worlds, delete Star wars, Star trek, I'd really like to see you get THAT done, who are YOU to delete this stuff, many people come online to learn about Gundam on wikipedia, and you act as if your opinions are God. Get a job. Volnixshin

"huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders" made me actually laugh. However, something of this size probably should be discussed somewhere. I don't know of a specific Gundamn wikiproject, WikiProject Anime and Manga maybe? I don't think the main contributors to any of the articles are active in WP: space though =/ Kotepho 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is really' crufty, at least the articles on all of the mass produced suits. It would be a shame to see their hard work deleted improperly though, and I am a bit of a stickler for copyright issues. Kotepho 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to be so insulting when nominating the articles for deletion? "huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders" is obviously intended to provoke people and makes it seem like this is done more out of personal bias than feeling it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But hey, if that's how you roll, that's how you roll. Calaschysm 03:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a whatever, but you've admitted you consider the articles you nominate to be garbage. Isn't that a rather bad way to put things? It doesn't show you in a positive light, no personal offense intended. Calaschysm 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By using the term "Cruft", you admit you dislike the series. That is alright. But by no means does that give you the right to delete it! Others do use the Wiki for data on the series and machines. A lot of people put in the effort to put these up here for the masses to view. By what right do you have to delete a lot of hard work? If you don't like the series fine, but don't try to push your personal opinions on other people. Revan Vrake

Judging by your statement, it's obvious that you have never even seen the series. Please, know what you're talking about before you randomly start deleting things. Mobile Suit Gundam is one of, if not the, best shows that I have ever seen, and I've seen alot of good shows. So, for all of our sake, keep your childish ideas of deleting everything to yourself.

Wow. First of all thank you all my fellow fans. And second of all YOU. Yes you Mr. Brian G. Crawford. Who put a beam saber up your rear? If you dont like a series fine but dont bash it and say that the show just boils down to samurai robots with swords. I mean seriously a) know what your talking about when you start to bash things (cause its obvious you have never watched a single gundam series and actually thought about it) and b)personally lets hear what things you like on Wikipedia, then all of us fans will get those topics off Wiki. Oh and by the way if you don't believe what i'm saying, and what others are, Mr. Crawford then just follow the link http://www.mahq.net/rants/editorials/crusader.htm

I think that just trying to delete something that isn't something you like is plain dumb. I'm also wondering why the "cruft" is only from the SEED universe not any of the others. The wikicity's not that great and isn't going anywhere soon because the articles are already here. This series is a part of popular fiction that has been around since 1979. Your reasoning is that it goes into detail about things and if it's too detailed it's cruft? That's a load of bull! If you wanna do something good that wouln't make anyone angry, how about asking that someone who knows something about the said show and asking them to see what should be combined and what should stay by itself. And, don't turn your beautiful "Cruft" excuse for AfD into flame bait. I'm also wondering why do you care that any of this stuff is on here when you don't like it? I'll make sure that if you delete anything, I'll help make it again.

'''Yes, I can see that you kids are upset. Go have mom give you a hug and a juice box, and mind your own business.''' Brian G. Crawford 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again with the insults! If you want to be respected, respect others yourself! See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks And this is the business of the fans of the series. And your targeting on Earth Alliance "colored fenders" that have been on the EA's side or were made by the EA. CONSPIRACY. Rappapa

Brian G. Crawford your blatant disregard for Popular Culture discusts me. You are a small minded bigot who should be banned from wikipedia. If you have a problem then go cry to YOUR mom about it and leave us to our own devices. no one forces you to read Gundam related articles so if you want to delete something, go delete the contents of your own hard drive. Gundam his huge and deserves it's place on wikipedia. It's a hell of a lot less childish than you are. - Wookieman (Fight the power!)

Brian G. Crawford, it seems your little crusade has failed. Pity, for you that is. This is Wikipedia! This is a free dictionary open to all topics! I mean, did the government try to remove the Taliban from it since they disagree with it and consider it evil? Or in the actual dictionary, did Atheists try to remove religious topics since it disagreed with them? The answer, my friend is no, so is the same with your little quest to remove Gundam from this Encyclopedia Wikipedia. Fortunatly, it isn't gonna happen. Nice Try. - Taan Ey-

"Delete all webcomics"
Myself, I have a particular dislike for vanity, promotional, and fancruft articles, but it's a bit self-defeating to make absolute claims like "delete all webcomics", when there exist webcomics that most reasonable people would take to be clearly notable. An example of a notable webcomic is Penny Arcade.

Anyway, since the AFD thing is not actually a vote, citing an absolute position like "delete all webcomics" which is against the wider consensus is only going to make the person closing the deletion request ignore your input. --Saforrest 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small group nominations
Hey -- I voted on two of your Gundam cruft AfDs, but I'm concerned about this idea of nominating them for deletion in groups. If you nominate a group of articles, it encourages people to not care much about individual articles, but look at the big picture. This is just as true when you nominate 10 at a time as when you nominate 100; in fact, doing it in small groups is worse, because the articles don't get the individual attention they should probably get, and yet essentially the same debate on groups of articles is occurring on a wide variety of pages. I'd say, you should either combine them all into one, or nominate the articles individually. Mangojuice 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you ignored me and continued to nominate in small groups. Is it too much work to nominate articles individually?  Well, most of these articles have been edited by lots of editors, and it took them a lot of work to make these articles; if it were me, I think the least the community can do is to consider them individually.  Mangojuice 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's not too much to ask (indeed, I should have formaly asked here earlier.) What exactly is the criteria by which you are dividing these articles into such small groups? While I admit that the articles in question require some work (for example, organizing the entries based on the develeopment projects underwhich they were designed.) In my ignorance, I'm unable to determine just how nessesarily different the Duel and Strike articles are that they require separate nominations.--KefkaTheClown 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Donkey Punch" Edit War
I have looked through the AfD votes and the talk page of the relevant article and have not been able to find the particular points on which you dispute its factual accuracy or sourcing. I do not doubt that they exist, but it would be helpful if you were to list them clearly on the talk page under "factual disputes" so we could get on our way to sorting them out and stop fighting over this stupid little article. Thanks. Sammy1339 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Marduk in popular culture
'''Double-Ouch! BE NICE!!!''' Stop it immediately plz. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not my threat, not my block. I am not an admin, and blocks per NPA are supremely rare. But stock warnings are procedure so that nobody accuses anybody else of rash actions if/when stuff really does hit the fan. Nothing personal of course. Thanks for clearing out the Zamza-zah stuff :) hehehehehe - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to know that you're dropping the insult war, however. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Endor
You seem to be confused. Endor is a moon not a planet. The Endor seen in Episode VI is the Forest moon of Endor which orbits Endor. The Planet of Endor itself is not seen in Star Wars Episode VI. Jedi6 -(need help?)  02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

cue the trekkies...
lotsa nominations today, eh? take it easy, you don't wanna piss off too many people in one day! they might start voting keep on sight... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
Brian, of the last 50 edits you have made, at least 49 have been either nominations for AfD, or in some way connected to deleting articles. Of course, it's up to you how you spend your time and energy, but can you explain why you feel it appropriate to spend so much of your time attempting to delete stuff? Do you not like actually editing articles? I have to say, some (although not all) of your nominations seem to be simply because certain articles do not meet your own ideas of what is suitable for retention in the encyclopaedia. You might have more success if you can find specific passages from policy that back up your assertions as to notability etc., or otherwise, try and get the policy changed. If you can't, shrug it off and just get on with improving what we have. Wouldn't that be better than constantly nominating to AfD? The fact is, whether they are to your taste or not, the majority are happy to see these kinds of articles in Wikipedia. The important point is not to argue over whether or not they should exist, but rather to work together to try and improve them. Please don't take this as any kind of attack on you or your opinions, it is not meant to be. I just dont quite understand your position. All the best, Badgerpatrol 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree. I just skip the cruftycruft, unless superbalatant, and concentrate on my areas - geography, judaism, russia, stubsorting. Wanna join me on a stubsorting mission? We have crapload of unsorting university stubs. Say the word, and I'll set you working for a long time. Very satisfying. Deal? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Brian, are you on some sort of crusade to delete all popular culture from Wikipedia? J I P  | Talk 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He certainly seems to be on a quest to delete all fiction from Wikipedia. ekedolphin 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think these comments are unfair. Someone has to try and keep irrelevancies out of Wikipedia. The Encyclepaedia Brittanica doesn't have a seperate entry for each individual Smurf, and Wikipedia shouldn't either. It would be one thing if he was a delet-tator, and no one else got to have any input. But that's the nice thing about Wiki. He can delete, you can re-add, until we find a happy balance and move on to another article to fight about. :-)  Thank you for your efforts, Brian. -DejahThoris 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Each individual Smurf" is exaggerating. Brian voted Curzon Dax, Noonien Soong and Lionel Hutz for deletion. For deletion, mind you, not for merging into a list of characters. So if a fictional character isn't the star of the entire story, then Wikipedia should ignore his existence, pretend no such character was ever invented? The characters Brian voted for deletion are far more notable than some that I've written articles about, and I don't see anyone proposing them for deletion. I agree with him about the Gundamcruft, but I think major Star Trek and Simpsons characters should stay on Wikipedia. J I P  | Talk 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Section removals
It's usually considered very impolite (not to mention very unproductive to producing an encyclopedia) to remove whole sections from established articles without discussing the removal first on the talk page. Please consider engaging in a dialogue about such removals rather than automatically blanking them out. Z iggurat 23:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer you to guidelines such as Civility, Assume good faith, Consensus, and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The fact that there are no definitive statements about the relative worth of cultural references (and we're not just talking about pop culture, but also references such as significant cultural issues around animals - the bear in religious contexts being a prime example) implies that there is no consensus on whether they should be included or not. Rather than making such a decision yourself, surely it would be more productive to propose a change to policy and see what other people think? Wikipedia does urge ruthless editing, but it also urges dialogue in making such major changes, and the fact that so many of these references already exist indicates that there's a fairly strong amount of de facto consensus against such a unilateral activity. Z iggurat 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it if you didn't insult me, as you know very little about me and my activities. Thanks. I understand your position, and I disagree, and for both of the edits I changed I offered my opinion on the relevant talk page, which is more than you did in either circumstance. Nor is it "my way" to include all such trivia (I personally find a lot of it irrelevant), I just believe that significant changes demand significant justification as per Consensus, and I attempted to engage in such a consensus. I'm not talking about trivia specifically, I'm talking about how to go about editing any article. A good way of dealing with trivia would be to propose a policy such as "remove all trivia", or "reduce trivia to most significant examples", and seeing what other people think. A bad way is to start removing it all yourself, and then insulting people when they suggest an alternative method of achieving your aims. I'm trying to suggest better ways to edit, and you're assuming I'm trying to stop you from doing any editing. I don't know anything about any supposed persecution that you may have received in the past, but please don't assume that I'm part of it simply because I disagree with you. Z iggurat 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm making a suggestion on how best to put forth "your way". I'm trying to explain to you about how to edit harmoniously rather than confrontationally, and I don't believe it's only a matter of personal preference ("my way") - the guidelines above demonstrate that it is more than that. If you wish to ascribe me other motives then go ahead, but I believe that you would be misguided to do so. Z iggurat 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (Incidentally, I was not on RC Patrol when I noticed your edits. Don't pigeonhole me as such.)

Welcome back!
I don't agree with all of your edits, but I certainly appreciate some of them. Anyway, regrettably Blumpkin may bear watching. Your revert to a redirect was reverted as "vandalism" when it was in fact appropriate to redirect it (I have now done so). That's quite bizarre about that usenet post; had you remembered it? Шизомби 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quite a surprise; I've only been around since December so I think I've still more to learn. Maybe at some point in the future if other people thought it was a good idea too. Шизомби 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Socialism and Gold
Will you state why you believe this article should be deleted, maybe for a debate on its talk page. Bronks 10:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hogging and G4
Please don't tag articles as speedies under G4 when they do not qualify. I left a fairly clear note in the talk page why Hogging (Sexual) didn't qualify as a speedy, and it appears you did so anyway. Please keep that in mind in the future. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A New Man?
Hey Bri, thx for the star and gl in your continuing crusade against the cruftlicious Dirty Sanchez and friends. I am keeping an eye on things. Took me a minute to figure out you'd started a new user name...  D e iz  12:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoog merge
I saw the merge notice on "Zoog"; however I instead merged the article into Dreamlands. This is because this race appears in the writings of other authors outside Lovecraft's Dream-Quest, such as Brian Lumley's dreamland pastiches. (I do agree the article needed to be merged.) -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! I almost missed it in the sea of Southern Baptist edits on my watchlist :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

merge and talk
It is too bad you hadn't gone to Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas and made your case for the merge earlier. It might have made a difference with me and others. It is customary for people proposing a merge to state his/her case on the talk page. I have often reverted inclusion of the mergefrom or mergeto or merge tags when the editor who inserted it didn't comment on why. --rogerd 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I agree with your redirect on the other article. --rogerd 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the winged pony will belch stingless bumblebees after all. :) - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Research before AfD
Please, please, PLEASE do your other editors a favor and do some research on articles before recommending them for deletion. Head Automatica certainly reaches multiple levels of notability as put out by WP:MUSIC, and when it's put forward that they don't, it merely increases the load on everyone else. Please consider some care before prodding and AfDing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Plastic Figure Fighting
Ok, before this crap is deleted---which it obviously should be---would you object to it going to BJAODN. I didn't want to mess with the prod, less it be here a minute longer than required, but really think the tale of these lame-o teens rasslin' with their dolls needs to be saved for comedic posterity.  young  american (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Check out Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_ON_WHEELS%21%21 when you need a laugh.  young  american  (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sapiosexual
In your nom you didn't actually vote delete.... Esquizombi 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Exclusionist/Deletionist guild?
Should there be? I'm rather dissapointed at the no-consensus on Automatic washroom and Fart extinguisher based on the intervention of a few sophomoric editors (who are now busy collecting it at flatulence humor. I fear fart alarm will go the same way.--Mmx1 19:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN
Which article did that entry you just put into BJAODN come from? Fourohfour 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Following comment was originally posted at my talk page)
 * I took it from my old user page. It's something I wrote while trying to get Liberty Dollar deleted. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I guess that makes it "deleted nonsense", but it strikes me as a somewhat vanity inclusion. Then again, at least half the stuff in BJAODN isn't really posterity-worthy either.


 * While, I'm here, I removed the PROD from Buttered Cat Paradox and intend AfDing it; I oppose the deletion, because the phenomenon, whilst very silly, is nevertheless well-known and notable. But I prefer to have a proper discussion about it instead of merely removing tags.


 * Fourohfour 23:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I've removed the entry at bad jokes. From your history, it appears that you genuinely dislike this thing (which may be a valid viewpoint, I don't know), and the reply to your comment still didn't make it that funny. Fourohfour 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neon Zoo
This was not a speedy candidate (as you tagged it), since where they played is an assertion of notability. You are free to challenge that assertion if you wish, by taking it to AFD. If you used PROD, or AFD, I wouldn't have opposed you (given its current state), but a speedy just doesn't fit policy in this case. --Rob 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anal jewelry
Did you notice that the last edit before you degraded the article into a dictionary definition. I'm complaining about this on the talk page. --Easyas12c 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed]

Recent prods
Brian, would you consider not prodding anything that is notable, but may have original research, and instead tagging them as needing sources? Too often, it seems that you're prodding/AfDing based on issues that could be dealt with by dealing with sources FIRST before going the deletion route. Please consider it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dartmouth College's motto
It's turned into a revert war again, so I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page again. You were one of the people who replied on the first (now archived) discussion that occurred, so I was wondering if you'd like to give your input again. See Talk:Dartmouth College for the current discussion and Talk:Dartmouth_College/Archive_1 for the archived discussion. --└Smith120bh/TALK┐ 16:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Soggy biscuit
Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Talking on your behalf?
Regarding this comment
 * I didn't authorize User:Fourohfour to speak on my behalf, and I truly resent his comments.

at another user's talk page: I do not understand why you believe I spoke on your behalf, particularly given the dialogue between us over the past week. I would appreciate it if you could tell me where you believe these comments to be. Thank you. Fourohfour 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Noah dudziak
Hello! I note you placed a speedy tag on the above article. I did the same eariler today but, upon reflection, realized that hoax articles do not meet WP:CSD. Therefore I prod'ed it and, after the author removed the prod, I took it to AfD. It is now on AfD here, in the event you would like to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Those donkeys
I think you are right. They are inserting unsourced cruft. But please remain calm and do not rise to the bait. Just zis Guy you know? 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Esposito
I have no ties to this person or to that town in West Virginia, unfortunately. I think I just stumbled on some news stories and write up an article from them. JRP 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Article disputes
Hi. I've been asked by User:Linnwood to try to mediate some disputes about articles, including Donkey punch and Cleveland steamer. I know that things have gotten somewhat heated. I've asked him to stop referring to your edits as "vandalism"; I've explained to him that you're trying to improve Wikipedia by removing unverifiable material. Personally, I don't like the articles in question very much either.

But there are people who care a lot about the material they've written in these articles, and want to try to improve them. Without knowing a lot about the subject, it can be very difficult to tell the difference between "material that can never be sourced adequately" and "material that doesn't have an adequate source in the article". Removing material from the article completely can lose otherwise-salvagable material in the depths of the edit history.

That's why I'd like to ask that when you remove substantive material from an article, you move it to the talk page, so that a discussion can start about it. That way, the people who care about the article have a chance to find sources, to show that they're not performing Original Research. It would also help a lot if you tried to avoid words like "fancruft" and other loaded words; people who aren't experienced in AFD can see those as a lot more serious.

I hope that I can help you with any disagreements you have about this. Please leave messages on User talk:Creidieki if there's anything I can do to try and mediate this, and thank you. -- Creidieki 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)