User talk:Mikebe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Mikebe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

bibliomaniac15 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] BJCP proposed deletion

I deleted the proposed deletion from the talk page of the article because the {{prod}} tag should go on the main article and not the talk page. I didn't initially endorse the deletion, which is why I didn't move the prod to the article page.

I still don't see where there's a POV issue in the article. What I do see is that they don't talk about any outside media coverage they've gotten, and that fails the notability criteria in WP:ORG. I've noted that concern but have now decided to endorse the proposed deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


In response to your comment:

I read your note and thanks for the explanation. My reason for the NPOV violation is that the article is very one-sided in a positive way. A non-positive edit was made on 24 August, for example, and removed on 1 Sept.

The 24 August edit was, IMHO, non-NPOV and skewed to the negative. I think if there were citations for criticism of the group, it should have been allowed to stand. Other than that deletion, I think the article stays pretty objective. To me, the biggest weakness is that the only supporting sources for the article are the group itself -- not inherently a NPOV violation, but certainly not providing good, verfiable sources (not to mention independent sources!). —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triumph Brewing Company

Could you please take another look at the Triumph Brewing Company? The references to the article seem to be the sort of independent published articles contemplated by [{WP:CORP]]. I think the article passes. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Please read what I posted. Please cite even one article that meets this requirement: "1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." And please be so kind to explain why you think a purely local business (a green-grocer in Hilversum, for example) deserves to have an entry in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mikebe 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Mikebe, I presume this is the article you requested me to look at in your comment on my talk page. While the general rule of thumb is that local restaurants don't pass muster, this one 1) is a minor chain of 3+ locations, 2) has gotten major media coverage (Philadelphia Magazine and apparently the NY Times), and 3) is notable for being behind the legalization push in NJ. I took a look, and for this one, I had to recommend keep on the AfD, based on 2) and 3). —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In reply

Generally, a discussion on the talk page or an AFD is needed. If you want details on speedy deletion, see WP:SD for more details on articles that can be speedily deleted. However, it is easy to support a business article by eliminating POV and spam, and introducing independent sources. As for adhering to policy, some people are staunch "word-for-word" policy followers, while some go for a looser explanation. Personally, I take the latter, but don't let my decision influence you much. Does this relate to the Triumph Brewing Company AFD? bibliomaniac15 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Notability

I think you misunderstand notability. Reading Uncle G's essay "On Notability" as well as guidelines on notability for some good ideas. A glance at What Wikipedia is Not may also help, especially the idea that Wikipedia is Not Paper. Your comments on the Triumph Brewing AFD discussion are welcome and quite good, but I think you are missing the point on notability. Notability is NOT the standard, dictionary defintion of such. It is a subset of the policy on verifiability; in that it establishes what sorts of verifiable information is valid to establishe a writable article. We can debate what non-trivial means, but largely, the standard, as has been applied for some time now, is that non-trivial means that it is more than "directory information". The fact that reliable publications have cared enough about this business to write extensive reviews about it means that we have sources outside of Wikipedia that have cared enough to note this business; thus it is notable by Wikipedia standards. At issue is largely:

  • Can we write an NPOV article about this subject, that is referenced to information in reliable, third-party sources, such that the article contains more than trivial (address, phone number, establishment dates, etc.) information? If yes, the subject is notable.

Thank you again for your continued comments, and please note that I am not trying to attack you. Your comments are intelligent and relevent, and very welcome. I just feel they are a bit misguided. --Jayron32 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJCP AfD incorrectly formed

The AfD you tried to nominate for this article was incomplete and incorrectly formed. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion for instructions on how to properly list an article for deletion.

Text of the incorrectly formed AfD is below for your convenience:

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

—Doug Bell talk 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Judge Certification Program

Hi. I noticed that you've opened an AfD on this article but seem to have forgotten to place the template at the top. I'll do that for you now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American POV

Perhaps, instead of deleting a valid comment which just happens to be from an American source (which wouldn't necessarily be US-centric), you could add in addition, information from other sources. If other sources are not available, we simply have to do with the sources we have. If something looks like it would not be universal, you preface it with something that says so. As for your complete disdain for the BJCP, so much so that you put that article up for deletion (and are calling it a "homebrewers groups" without acknowledging that its purpose is obviously much more wide-ranging), again, they have a valid point of view that is understood by many, and so if the information from them is available, it would be useful to include it. Nobody is claiming that style guides from the BJCP are the be all and end all of beer. We are including the information because even if it's not accepted by every beer drinker (nothing ever will get such acceptance). I would envision an infobox in beer-style articles that has guidelines from several well-known beer-related groups, side-by-side. Instead of deleting, do the hard work and instead add style information from other groups. As for "Belgian Dark" not being a Belgian definition, that's irrelevant. If it is a definition that is understood well enough by enough people, then it's a definition. The article might need a note that says this style or style group is not recognized in Europe where it would be understood to be a catch-all that includes many different beer styles that might not appear to fit together well in a single supercategory, but once that comment is made, then how can you find fault with the article, simply because you or your beer group does not recognize such a category? I hope you're objecting to the article simply because the name has the word "Belgian" in it because the Belgians don't recognize such a category. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the "adult" response. I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with any of what you wrote. For example, "deleting a valid comment" -- what valid comment? The BJCP guidelines? Sorry, I see no purpose in having them on Wikipedia outside of the home-brewing article. I have no disdain for the BJCP, I have disdain for its followers, adherents or whatever who misunderstand its purpose. Please don't tell me that it is not a homebrewers group, because that is exactly what it is. While the group may have lofty goals of beer education (and I wish them well in that), all they do is train volunteers to act as judges at home brewing competitions. At least, according to their site, that is all they do.
Their guidelines are meant to help these volunteer judges standardise their evaluation of beers at home brewing competitions. OK, fine. Now, please explain what relevance this has to someone drinking a professionally brewed beer. I have been drinking beer since before you were born (I looked at your user page) and until I came to Wikipedia I had never heard of the BJCP or style guidelines. And do you know what? I have been enjoying beer for years without having the foggiest idea what the style guidelines for that beer might be. For me, and millions of others, the question is not does this meet BJCP style guidelines, but, do I like this beer? Does it taste good? Style guidelines from the BJCP or any other organisation do nothing toward answering those questions and they are the only relevant questions for some one tasting a beer.
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment that it's irrelevant that "Belgian Dark" is not a Belgian style. Then why call it Belgian? If you want to call it a Dark beer, fine. The fact that there is not a single valid example of it should be proof enough that it is not valid.
I sincerely hope that despite our disagreement, we can make the beer articles on Wikipedia better. I was glad to see that you like Belgian beers -- so do I. Please understand that style guidelines contribute absolutely nothing to a newcomers appreciation of the beer world and factual articles do contribute a good deal. Imagine, for example, some one reading your Belgian Dark article, travelling to Belgium and asking for one. What do you think would happen? Mikebe 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing, though, is that there are style guidelines laid out by all sorts of beer organizations. Personally, I had never heard of the BJCP before this conflict either, and I don't particularly care what their definition for a particular style is (as you say, it's what you like that matters). But someone might care. Someone might also like to know what the style definitions are as understood by other organizations as well (and your argument of homebrew versus professionally-produced beer is fallacious--many would argue that a good homebrewer can make beer of exceptional quality, and the style guidelines of the BJCP are supposed to describe the beer styles in general, homebrew or professional).
  • I'm sorry to say this but your first statement is simply not true. (And, btw, I hope this is a discussion between two reasonable and intelligent people and not a "conflict"!) In Belgium, there is a beer organisation called Zythos. I cordially invite you to visit zythos.be and find their style guidelines. Or go to pint.nl and show me the style guidelines there. Please believe that as a European, I know beer here much, much better than you do and I can assure you that style guidelines are practically unknown here. Secondly, your comparison of home-brew vs professional is not valid for one very good reason: I (or you) can walk into a store and buy any professionally brewed beer. There is no way we can sample home-brew unless we know the brewer. And, as I said about the BJCP, their style guidelines are only for home-brew competitions, so I don't understand how you can say that they are also for professionals.
  • There are certainly other style guides out there. Others I have found in quick checks are also American, unfortunately, like this. Even if nobody has written out an authoritative European (as though Europe were united) style guide, tasters and breweries obviously have their standards that they will judge a beer by. While the BJCP's guidelines can by no means be considered universal, they can be considered to be understood as the BJCP's guidelines. As for your continued insistence that the BJCP's guidelines cannot be considered to work for commercially-produced beer, I fail to see why. Surely they came to their style guide by looking at the beer on the market as it was labelled. Not happy with the actual guidelines? Think they're not right? Then mark the links as giving the point of view of an American organization. Don't outright delete them.
  • And I would be much happier with the BJCP guidelines if they would stick to beers they know -- American beers. But, as I said, the Belgian Dark is a "style" that exists only in their minds and some of their other style guidelines (Belgian Tripel, for example) are simply not accurate. As I've said, as long as they use the foreign styles only in home-brew competitions, I don't really mind -- it's when people come here and try to say that they are accurate that I have a problem.
  • American beers are the beers they know?! Honestly, you think that? Despite the massive amount of piss put out by the big (and small) breweries in the United States, many American craft brewers can make "European beer" (as though any beer really gets stuck on a continent) as well as European breweries. I'm sure you can't find any good American beer in Belgium with all the amazing Belgian stuff there is, but I assure you, there are some just fabulous "European beers" made by Americans. It is the height of arrogance to claim that you have a monopoly on good beer made in just about any style other than "piss lager".
This is an encyclopedia, and while you might not agree with or care for a particular definition of a style, that doesn't mean that definition has no informational value. Obviously there are criteria for what makes a beer a certain kind of beer. A witbier is obviously not a tripel, and there are certain things that make a witbier a witbier and a tripel a tripel. These criteria differ from group to group and person to person, but they obviously exist. You cannot market a witbier as a tripel (or you can, but that doesn't make it one). These style descriptions are useful for an attempt to probe the differences.
  • Now, here I think we are not that far apart (at least I hope so). I agree with you in principal, but I would much prefer that the contributors writing the articles could put in a few tasting notes themselves. This would obviously require that the contributors really know about the beer before they write about it, which, sadly, is not the case now. Furthermore, the BJCP guidelines encourages this lack of expertise because people can write about a beer they've never tasted or perhaps even never seen and just use the BJCP guidelines instead of contributing from their own knowledge or experience. I refer you to Cream_ale as an example of this.
  • Unfortunately, tasting notes by editors of their own experience is original research, which is one of the things we, as an encyclopedia, simply are not allowed to include. Tasting notes would have to come from a published reliable source, such as a beer magazine, in order to be included.
As for your not understanding the "Belgian Dark" comment, perhaps you can just mentally insert the word "style" between "Belgian" and "Dark". Obviously, the classification is intended to describe beers of a dark colour brewed in the "Belgian style". If it turns out that the term is used commonly by a large portion of the beer-drinking world (and I don't even argue that that's the case, but the article is certainly not a speedy delete candidate), whether it is accurate is irrelevant. Encyclopedias, like dictionaries, describe usage, they do not prescribe it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said before, come to Belgium, walk into a pub and ask for a "Belgian Dark" and see what happens. In fact, other than the BJCP, I don't believe it is even a style recognised in the US! If you don't believe me, go to Ratebeer and try it. As I said above, I don't have a problem with BJCP making up styles for home-brew competitions. If the point of an encyclopedia is to bring people knowledge/information, doesn't that knowledge/information have to be correct? We're going to tell people that there is a beer style called "Belgian dark" when there really isn't? That's not very responsible, is it? Mikebe 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • All you're arguing is that it's not a type of beer you can ask for in Belgium. Simply rewrite the article to call it a "beer class" that includes several actual (and somewhat dissimilar) styles of beer, which is used in the United States. You have then made the article make sense, and you have not attempted to censor information because you think it's "wrong". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain we are not the same person

I see User:Osgoodelawyer is talking with you in a much more civil and less accusatory manner than he is with me. Can you please make clear to him that you and I are not the same person. I did suggest that he ask you who you are, but I see that he hasn´t bothered. So I´ll make the request directly: can you tell him your name so we can put an end to his silly accusations.Patto1ro 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I would suggest seeing dispute resolution which suggests a variety of procedures to handle these sort of situations. I would look into the matter myself but I'm very busy right now. However, please keep me informed of what occurs and if there are any specific details that you think I should know feel free to email me or put a note on my talk page. JoshuaZ 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to be more specific. In particular, what policies are being violated? Are there WP:NPOV,WP:NPA,or WP:CIVIL problems? From your brief description those sound like what might be most relevant but without more info I don't have much to go on. You mentioned that the editor in question was overemphasizing American beer - this would certainly be an WP:NPOV problem and getting other editors to look at the topic (possibly getting a 3rd opinion as described at WP:DR) would be best to deal with that. JoshuaZ 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest email

It may be best to give both the American style summaries and whatever the European style summaries are as well. That at least would seem (given my admittedly minimal knowledge of the subject) a reasonable way of handling issues. JoshuaZ 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Beer

Hi Mikebe. Yes, I'm still active, though I haven't made any posts to the beer project page lately, and it seems no ones else has either. I've been busy cleaning up a few San Antonio related articles plus articles on beers (High Falls Brewing Company, Champale, Shiner, etc.). I've also been busy looking up information for the article on Pearl Brewing Company. Pearl really seems to be an endless task that I'm never 100% with certain sections enough to move on. Things have been pretty quiet around the project page, maybe its just because of the holidays, with everyone being too busy to post. Hopefully things will pick up around the project when the new year rolls around. Feel free to drop by my talk page any time though for a chat.  :) Cheers! --Brownings 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it was 6 or 7AM when I was posting. I'm in San Antonio, Texas, but I post all times of the day and night since I only sleep 4 or 5 hours a night. As for chatting, well this is it as far as Wikipedia goes. Nothing fancy like an IM or anything, so I guess it's more like a semi-private forum than anything. As for what to chat about, well, any articles you'd like help with or an opinion on, just let me know. I'm more of a history person than anything, which is one of the reasons I redo the background on breweries more than anything. I've adjusted some of the beer styles, but nothing major in that area outside of my changes to the article on Malt liquor. If you need any help though, I'm willing to help. --Brownings 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Mikebe. Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I've had a few issues recently with my computer, so Wiki time was limited. At any rate, I read your message on my user talk page, and I can see where you have a point. Articles shouldn't have a slant toward one country in particular. The article should give a general or in-depth explanation of the subject, and then have any regional or country specific information in a sub-section or a whole other article. Take for example the Wiki article on Prohibition. If that article was written in the American only POV, then a lot of people would probably thing Prohibition was only tried in the US. Instead it's broken up into sections and sub-articles on the different countries (i.e. Prohibition in Russian Empire and Soviet Union). Honestly, if not for Wiki article I would have never even though of other countries having a Prohibition period.
I have no clue on home brewing and only a weak knowledge of the styles, but if what you're saying about the Belgium beer style is correct, then I think it should definitely CLEARLY state that its not a widely recognized style and usually only found in home brewing competitions. In addition, listing other styles or beers that are part of the "Belgium Style" could be very misleading to someone who's reading the information and trying to learn new things. Instead of saying an example is PART of the style, say instead that the example is close in color, taste, etc. of what is considered Belgium.
As for your problems with Goethean and Oz I'm not sure what to say. I just hope the situation will eventually be resolved amicably, and doesn't drive contributors away from editing articles. I say that WikiProject Beer needs all the help it can get, and while we'll never all be able to agree on everything, article discussions should never turn nasty. --Brownings 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgian Strong Dark Ale

You stated: There seems to be a misunderstanding about Belgian Strong Dark Ale: it is solely a classification for home-brewing competitions.

If this is so, then why does, for instance, BeerAdvocate use the term in its list of styles: [1]? The term may have originated from the BJCP, but that obviously does not preclude its adoption elsewhere. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I tried talking to you on an adult and rational level before. As you also know, that didn't turn out too well. I am willing to forgive and forget, but I have a condition: my condition is simply that you talk with me with an open mind. I want to have the assurance that the possibility exists that you can change your mind. As I said on the tripel page, I am not willing to contribute to Wikipedia so long as you act as you have in the past. And, as I hope that conversation on the tripel page proved, there are contributions to Wikipedia that I am, in a sense, unique to make, especially since you have chased Ron Pattinson away. If you agree to this, I will reply to you. Mikebe 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite what you may think, I actually have quite an open mind and have certainly been convinced by reasoned intelligent argument to change it on many occasions. You can take it to the bank that I am open to being convinced that I am wrong. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, it's not my goal to prove you wrong. It's my goal to improve the beer pages because some of them are pretty awful and to try to have you at least not fight with me over everything. One of the problems, and I may have expressed a lot of frustration about this, but it is a genuine problem, is that most of the contributors can only read English and for some of the European beers this a real problem because the accurate information seems only to be available in the local language. The tripel article is a fairly good example, the Märzen article is an even better example.
Another problem here is that many Americans see beers in terms of style, whereas Europeans don't. Here in Europe there are two ways of looking at beers: one is geographic, the other is the type. Alt is an example of a geographic name, kerstbier is an example of a type. A Trappist beer is a geographic "style" because the name describes where it came from.
You raise an interesting point with the beeradvocate link: this is, in a sense, the problem with all this style business. If you go to ratebeer, they have no such style (Belgian Strong Dark Ale). Furthermore, if you look up one of the beers (Alvinne Balthazar, for example) listed as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale on beeradvocate, on ratebeer they call it a Belgian Strong Ale, which is a much more commonly used description among English-speakers than Belgian Strong Dark Ale. Secondly, the beeradvocate is clearly very sloppy: they list Drie Ringen Bok as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale, when it is a bock beer, not strong (6.5% abv) and it is not even an ale!
This is exactly one of the reasons that I find the style guide links such a problem: the BJCP may call it one thing, but ratebeer or beeradvocate or Michael Jackson or Tim Webb or somebody else may call it something else. In the case of Belgian Strong Dark Ale, even beeradvocate and ratebeer can't agree, plus beeradvocate has thrown all kinds of other beers into the same category. Mikebe 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you weren't wrong, I was simply a little busy to respond properly, and then, gosh, I had to spend some time with my wife and then sleep.
You're right, there are all sorts of categories from all sorts of people and groups, and they're not all consistent. Those that are followed by enough people, though, need to be represented (correctly, of course, noting where the category is used and where it is not). BeerAdvocate obviously made a mistake if they included a Bock in their classification, and should be informed of this mistake—it does not make the category non-existent. My various beer books use all sorts of styles for beers. In one a beer might be a "Strong Ale", in another a "[Belgian] Golden Ale". In one it doesn't even bother to try to classify a good many Belgian beers, even going so far as to call Duvel a "special beer"). However, the problem with pretending these classifications don't exist, as was pointed out to you on your AN/I complaint, is that instead of helping the beer drinker, it makes them ignorant of the regional variations in terminology and use. If you have an article on a style type that is widely enough used to be notable for inclusion, and then explain the situation of that style in terms of world-wide use, you will be able to inform and educate without imposing your own definition as the correct one.
Europeans may not really see "style", but the vast majority of other beer drinkers do. I assure you it is not just an American thing—I have no doubt that Australia, South America, probably Africa, and at least Japan in Asia see beer in terms of style. Heck, I'd even hazard to guess that the "style" view is basically used everywhere outside of Europe, generally because "style" is probably the most useful way of looking at beer when most variations come from Europe. The term "kerstbier", whatever that is, probably can't be considered to be of any use to an Argentine.
I see you snickering at my need to mention "the rest of the world", as you probably think (like you do of the United States) that they can't possibly put out any good European-style beer. Well, I don't know about South America and Africa (the beers I have tried from there are generally weak lagers, i.e. Bavaria and Castle Lager), but I've tried a couple pretty good beers from Australia, and I know that some Japanese microbreweries make absolutely magnificent stuff. Good fucking luck finding it outside of Japan, or probably even the immediate region of its production (although I have been able to find Hitachino Nest, which is probably not really a microbrew, nor the best, but still pretty good). Probably most countries with a few dedicated beer-loving individuals have a microbrewery or two that puts out some pretty good beer. And even if these places didn't make good beer, they still get a say in terminology, both on and off of Wikipedia.
I'd even go so far as to assume that outside of the "centre of the beer world"—Benelux, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic—the use of styles as a major descriptor for beer is probably not nearly as unheard-of as you make it out to be. I've seen a British beer site use the term "Belgian Strong Golden Ale", which even if more common than "Belgian Strong Dark Ale" is no different in actuality (it lumps together a bunch of beers by country, strength, and colour). Since styles are so prevalently used in the beer world, they absolutely have to be an important part of the beer articles on Wikipedia). To ignore them would be something akin to writing the history of the American Revolution from only the English side, or the War of 1812 from only the American side (most Americans think they won the war of 1812, which is an insult to a Canadian like me).
Anyway, back to the issue at hand: When there are several styles that are exact or close matches, it would probably be a good idea to redirect the style names to an article which is named that of the most common of the lot, and then note the name variations (and any small variations in the criteria for those other styles) in the article. Also, other styles which are different enough to warrant their own articles, but which may overlap (or entirely include the other) should be noted and linked to, i.e. your comment about "Belgian Strong Dark Ale" and "Belgian Strong Ale" ("Strong" obviously includes all those some might call "Strong Dark", as well as anything someone else might call "Strong Golden" or "Strong Pale"). In fact, doing it this way actually gives enough substance to grow a useful article, instead of a five-sentence stub (it can inform the reader much better about not only the term they were looking for, but the general styles it is kin with).
I hope at least some of that was useful. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that common names for beer groupings should be redirects to a significant article. SilkTork 10:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Thanks for the update. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my agenda

I would appreciate it if you would expand on your comment here and tell me what you perceive my agenda to be. — goethean ॐ 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would appreciate if you would stay out of beer project discussions since you don't contribute to the project. Mikebe 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish that I could say that I am surprised to have my extremely reasonable request countered by an outrageous one. — goethean ॐ 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Outrageous? Strange, I thought it was true. Tell me, what have your contributed? Mikebe 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that it would be irresponsible of me not to warn you that saying that a user has an agenda is a violation of WP:AGF and that asking a user to stay away from certain pages is a violation of WP:CIVIL. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're going to lecture me on civility? After attacking me personally. Thanks for the update. Mikebe 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Imitation is most sincere form of flattery. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imp st

So add some British examples. The US is a more notable producer of imperial stouts than Scandinavia. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Request

Hi Mikebe,

Give me a few moments to look over the talk pages so we can begin your case. \/\/slack (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems there's been some back and forth involving this. I'm not going into the content dispute: I know little/nothing about beer and its seems that that discussion didn't provoke your request since you only filed Goethean as the other party.
Saying "And I would appreciate if you would stay out of beer project discussions since you don't contribute to the project." wasn't very constructive and did violate WP:AGF. He is obviously contributing (being a part of the editing process), but his work is such that you don't view it as constructive in my view. Does that sound right?
I'm also seeing references to a personal attack that I can't find. Could you enlighten me? Respond here so we can keep it all together, please. Thanks! \/\/slack (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mikebe, ZoshuaZ, a fellow-admin friend of mine, suggested I might be able to help you out here a bit. Do you want to talk about your problem with another user? Not that I'm an expert on beer, just a consumer (of English, French, Belgian, some German and American beers. Beeer! Mmmmmmm!). Guy (Help!) 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer style

Hi Mike. You edited this sentence in Beer style: "While the systematic study of beer styles, as exemplified by the BJCP, a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA, is a modern phenomenon, the act of beer differentiation itself is ancient and widespread." and removed "as exemplified by the BJCP, a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA." Would you read the sentence again. I think you'll see that the sentence makes sense, and that BJCP is one of the organisations most responsible for promoting the notion of a systematic study of beer styles. The description of BJCP is - I think - fairly accurate: "a non-profit home-brewing organisation in USA" - and puts them into context. This is not a promotion of BJCP at all, but an accurate and honest reflection of the situation. If you feel the sentence is in some way honouring or promoting BJCP would you explain it to me. I could use the word amateur rather than non-profit - though both words carry about the same weight and meaning in this context. I have said home-brewing, which gently points out where they are coming from. The systematic study of beer styles is a neutral term - how the reader responds to that would depend on how they view the concept of putting beers in beer style boxes. If the reader is against such an approach, then mention of BJCP as being one of the leading organisations responsible for such activity would be seen as a negative comment - like saying Beecher was responsible for reducing the number of railway branch lines in the UK. I understand your concern to make the beer information on Wikipedia more accurate, though I think you might be better employed at ADDING material to articles rather than REMOVING them - especially when the stuff you remove is attempting to put a large and influential organisation into context. Attempting to white-wash any event or organisation out of history is not what Wiki is about. Take care. SilkTork 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O dear

I see you've removed a big chunk of history. I just came to that article to check some details and reference it, and I can't find the information. You've deleted a huge amount of text. Mike. This is not a helpful thing to do. I'm not in favour of reverting stuff without first talking it through with people. If you have problems with that article, lets talk about it. Make it right. Do the work that you feel is needed. At the moment you have simply removed huge chunks of text but haven't added anything. Talk to me. I'm concerned. SilkTork 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/User_talk%7EMikebe_1b34.html"