User talk:Brewcrewer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

September,2007

Regrets! This White Sox fan was pulling big time for the Brewers to come back and win the Division. One of my colleagues has season tickets and commutes from the North Side up to land of brats and cheese throughout the summer.

2008 looms a long way off ..... LonelyBeacon 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Graf von Spaahm

The von Spaahms are a real german noble family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atze88 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


NOTABILITY /SPEED DELETION Sound Factory Band

This band is one of the best in Italy and it is relevant as it worked with Mike Stern and will soon also play live gigs with him. Also band members have respected careers for different things. Let me finish the page and you will see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredsoul2 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Walter Brookes Spong

Moved! Avalon 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Farmer's Daughter

It wasn't necessary to move it. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. I'm going to see if I can get it moved back. Clarityfiend 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I noticed that after I moved it. But it says that it's "not the mandatory name for a disambiguation page." The language used implies that it isn't an edit that requires reversal. I, therefore, left it as is. If you, however, want to move it back, I will have no problem with it. Thanks. --Brewcrewer 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What I do to find a pesky hidden link is edit the entire page, copy the code into Word (or some other text program) and then Ctrl+F to find the link NielsenGW 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! --Brewcrewer 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Will Adams

Hi, I am pretty sure that it should redirect to will.i.am. The fact that he is the only producer at William Adams (disambiguation) confirms this. Hope this helps. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct Adams.

As the title of this post suggests, you got the right one. Cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 11:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Millfield

On Tony Adams, I should think the producer is the most likely one, but frankly I don't know. It's at least possible that it's none of them. Xn4 20:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Adler (inventor)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Charles Adler (inventor), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8351.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agassi

When you overhauled this page you omitted the remark "family name not of Iranian origin" for "Joseph Agassi". Since the top of the page reads "Iranian family name" I find this remark noteworthy and put it back in. Berndf 09:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your latest edit. That's fine Berndf 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden

Hola! Okay, so does this mean a consensus has been reached? 1) It was a "split" tag, not a "merge" tag. 2) It was not a deleted article, it was a dead-red Wikilinki to an article that has never been created. There is similar one here Madison_Square_Garden#1925-1968. User:Milchama ask for opinions on splitting out the sections here: Talk:Madison_Square_Garden#Separate_articles_for_MSG_1-3.3F. But, nobody seems real interested in it. I left Milchama a note there other day, he made one edit after I left the note, but did not respond to my message, so I guess he no longer cares. So, before removing those kind of tags, you should go to the talk page and state why and what you are going to do. Nobody seems to really care much about that article, and I am kind of surprised. I thought that there would be some die hard New Yorkers that would really be active in it. Please either leave both tags, or remove both tags, and leave a comment as to why you removed the tags in the discussion area. Thanks, carry on. WikiDon 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad, Sorry.--Brewcrewer 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski.

Thanks, I don't know when I would of gotten round to creating the article myself. KTo288 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion nomination

If you think the article is a deserving candidate for deletion (i.e. the person it's about doesn't meet notability requirements), then I'd go through the nomination process set forth at WP:AfD. If you need any help let me know. Pats1 T/C 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. As long as you didn't create an entry for the article (it was redlinked in the template, so you didn't) or add the page to the list at AfD, you're fine. Pats1 T/C 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If you removed it, nothing. The tag is just there to provide links to the deletion discussion and AfD list. Pats1 T/C 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot

Thanks for fixing the ref. Very impressive!Edstat 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks, no prob. --Brewcrewer 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do at Chace Crawford

I have no admin powers, just so you know. But I'll put it in, with refs, and see if they leave it alone. If not, they'll be reported. K. Scott Bailey 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

When you expressed your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab you wrote: . Fails WP:BIO and smells like an old WP:COATRACK.

I had a discussion with the nominator over their COATRACK concern. Feel free to go read it. [1], [2]

I have been writing on controversial topics and so I bend over backwards to take every concern that my contribution have some kind of bias seriously. If you have a specific concern I would really appreciate it if you spelled it out for me.

I'd really appreciate it you took the time to be more specific as to what triggered you COATRACK concern.

Regarding WP:BIO, for controversial topics, notability devolves to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No offense, but in my experience there is a very strong correlation between how willing my correspondents are to take the official accounts of Guantanamo at face value with how notable they find coverage of Guantanamo, the captives held there, and the issues raised around their detention. Accepting that everything is well in hand they don't recognize any controversy, and find none of the material that can be referenced to reliable sources notable.

The citizendium has tried to learn from the wikipedia's mistakes. It has no notability policy, replacing it with "maintainability" -- taking the position that notability is too reliant on POV.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand why every person that was held at Guantanamo Bay deserves a seperate bio. In my opinion, if someone thinks it's important that each detainee have a seperate bio, that person is pushing some sort of agenda (hence the WP:COATRACK). All the best, --Brewcrewer 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because each one faces an unique set of allegations, and those allegations are very controversial. The allegations are (1) controversial, (2) documentable from verifiable reliable sources. There have been no serious complaints that this material is written from a biased point of view. IMO those who are uninterested in reading any details about Guantanamo are perfectly free to simply not read it. But attempting to suppress that material, so other readers cannot use the wikipedia to reach an informed conclusion? That starts to edge into censorship. I am not suggesting that censorship was your intention. But, it has clearly been the intention of some of those who have worked to suppress this material.
So long as the material is presented from a neutral point of view, cites reliable sources, and is on topics that people want to read about, I don't really see how their could be any question that it is not a COATRACK, and truly merits coverage here.
Cheers! Geo Swan 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The allegations are not controversial, the process and the surrounding circumstances are controversial. If the allegations are contreversial, as you claim, then it might be correct to have a seperate bio for each detainee. What Guantanamo is famous for is how the detainees got there, how they are treated, and how they are tried. Therefore, it makes sense to have an article about the whole "Guantanamo process," but it does not make sense to have an article for each detainee.
Arguing that "those who are uninterested in reading any details about Guantanamo are perfectly free to simply not read it" is not an argument for an afd. If that were a legit argument we might as well close down the whole afd process.
I have never claimed that the matereial is unsourced or written from with a pov. I merely claim that the subject of the article is unnotable.
All the best, --Brewcrewer 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
One more point: What happened on 9-11 was, at the least, "very controversial." But that doesn't mean that each victim of 9-11 is deserving of a seperate article. According to your logic, any parties that are connnected to a "controversial" issue deserve a WP article. All the best, --Brewcrewer 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Do Guantanamo captives merit coverage, while (most) 9-11 survivors and 9-11 victims don't? Yes. I think so.
Most 9-11 survivors and victims were otherwise unremarkable people who started an unremarkable day, that turned out to be a very remarkable day. Victims who didn't do anything sufficiently brave, sufficiently resourceful, sufficiently cowardly to get news coverage that wasn't just a memorial, don't merit coverage here. 9-11 victims who did get coverage that wasn't just a memorial probably do merit coverage. Same with survivors. If survivors simply survived, and returned to an unremarkable life, they don't merit coverage. Survivors who were heroic, whose heroism is documented through verifiable, authoritative sources, do merit coverage. Even if there were hundreds, not dozens, of victims and survivors who were heroic enough to earn news coverage that was not simply a memorial, I think they all merit coverage here.
You called 9-11 controversial. But, on an important level, it is actually well understood. There is no controversy as to why 9-11 victims were there. They showed up for work, same as they did every day. Or they were an emergency responder. Same with the survivors.
The Guantanamo captives are completely different. The Bush Presidency's official line remains that they are dangerous men -- "very bad men" -- who were "captured on the battlefield". The official line is that they are terrorists, or are tied to terrorism. Do the individual allegations against them support the general Bush Presidency claims? For readers to reach their own conclusions they need to read the actual allegations -- material which you want to suppress.
You wrote above: "What Guantanamo is famous for is how the detainees got there, how they are treated, and how they are tried." -- You are perfectly free to draw that conclusion. I draw a different conclusion. I think notable aspects of the story include:
  • the weakness of the specific allegations captives faced;
  • the widespread internal inconsistencies within those allegations;
  • the extent to which those allegation do not match the general allegations of "captured on the battlefield", tied to terrorism, etc.;
  • the credibility of some of the captives' alibis;
  • the complete failure of JTF-GTMO and OARDEC to make any attempt to verify those alibis;
  • the charade of OARDEC pretending to provide witnesses, when the testimony not one "off-Island" witness was provided.
Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Holywood, New Jersey?

Mr Jersey: Look at the redlink at Agnes de Lima. Do you know what it is? --Brewcrewer 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw the article after it was created and scratched my head. I clicked on http://www.state.nj.us/nj/govinfo/county/localities.html a link from the state of New jersey that allows searches on local place names. "Holywood" didn't turn up anything, nor did I expect it to (it souned wrong). I tried "Hollywood", which is within Long Branch, New Jersey, but I didn't have any hook to pin this on other than the educated guess, so I was reluctant to change it. I will research further. Thanks for the note! Alansohn 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 ?

Hey! I noticed your edit to The Rebelution, and saw that your name was obviously derived from the nickname for Man-School. So, I am mildly curios as to who you are. You may respond via email if you want. 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

BusinessVoice

I'd like to discuss the deletion of the BusinessVoice page. The content is no different than that of the pages of BBDO, Muzak, Music Choice, etc. It provides a company history and mentions services provided, award listings and media recognition. All information is factual and verifiable. What part of the content is construed as blatant advertising? Thanks, Jcramer519 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as the page was deleted, and I don't remember the specifics of the article, I can't explain why I thought it was an advertisment. I would suggest you see this: Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it. All the best, --Brewcrewer 02:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The reason I put the merge template on Bank of America Tower (Jacksonville) and Barnett Bank‎ is because they are the same building (Bank of America Tower). Perhaps a redirect would be better? Cheers. --Digon3 talk 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have put a merge template on. Did I do it the wrong way? --Digon3 talk 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Bank of America Tower (Jacksonville) is an article about a building, and is notable on its own merits. Barnett Bank‎ is an article about a bank and its history (and is notable on its own merits) that happens to be located in the Bank of America Tower (Jacksonville). I see no reason to merge or redirect.
In regard to the merge template: you placed the merger templates correctly. However, you're supposed to begin a discussion on the talk page of the "destination page." If you really think that the articles should be merged, reinsert the templates and begin a discussion on the destination page. All the best, --Brewcrewer 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson

When most people come to Wikipedia they are going to enter:

Adrian Peterson

They are not going to know the person middle initial. You have it going straight to "L." This is not correct. Why don't you see this? ~ WikiDon 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Why not let the reader/viewer decide? Aren't they smart enough? ~ WikiDon 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am following Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term......") . All the best, --Brewcrewer 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

Regarding your recent edit at Geoff Pope (American football), please see Wikipedia:External links#External links section.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Woops! Thanks for the info. --Brewcrewer 07:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :-D ►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Replied on my talk.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unit 101

Hello,

I will really hope that you won't repeat this kind of diff. The facts are well documented (Pierre Razoux is quite a famous historian for example). You're acting as a vandal which is very sad and destroying some good content. I understand that you POV might be pro-israelian (which is absolutely your right), but once again don't destroy some content reported by historians. Poppy 11:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like a Hamas terrorist group propaganda piece. --Brewcrewer 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hum, you're an extremist. You shouldn't edit articles where your POV is that strong. Poppy 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is no way that Unit 101 - in its current state - is written with a WP:NPOV. I really don't want to get involved with these contentious issues. So let's just agree to disagree, and call it a day. I won't bother with that article. All the best, --Brewcrewer 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Anna Chromy

Hi, i cleaned up the NPOV content from the page, even the Swarowski citation since everything is written in private material (emails and snail-mail) and i can't publish anything of that. Would you please remove the NPOV template in case? thankyou. Andreabergamasco 13:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can add and remove the NPOV template. If you think that the article is good, then go ahead and remove it. All the best, --Brewcrewer 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou :) I'm a newbie but i should dare ;) Andreabergamasco 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blow (surname)

Your edit to Blow (surname) was mostly helpful, but in removing the parameter "Blow", you made the template read "...people with the surname Blow (surname)" rather than "...with the surname Blow." Just a friendly reminder to preview your edits to make sure templates do what you think they do, cause I know I've sure screwed that up plenty of times. — Swpbtalk.edits 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I didn't realize that's what happens. I, now, have to go back and check previous edits. All the best, --Brewcrewer 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Birman (surname)

You removed a category from Birman (surname) because it redirects to Biermann. Please check Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects where it reads: Alternate names for articles – The primary function of the category system is to allow readers to browse through articles. The category system is often used like an alphabetical index. It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternate names to appear in the index list, Editors should consider whether alternate names should be mixed in with other names, or not.

Bierman and Birman both must be listed. On the other hand, someone searching for Bierman maybe was searching for Birman (common mistake). Both articles are quite small to have their own article. No need to separate articles since: They are both listed in the Category: Surnames and it's easy to check both. In the future, if article becomes larger, editors can create two different articles.

So, my categorization is fine. Friendly, Magioladitis 09:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK you might be making a good point. So I just made into two seperate articles. If it doesn't agree with you then revert it. I won't lose any sleep over it either way. All the best, --Brewcrewer 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Magioladitis 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaelscoil Chill Dara

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I can't see how a primary school (a school for small children) is remotely notable. --Brewcrewer 09:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, but opinions vary. That's a pretty hot topic, actually. But whether or not it is notable, it does assert notability by virtue of being a school (some people argue that all schools are notable). It will likely be deleted after an AFD, but it should still go through the process to get a few more opinions. Kafziel Talk 09:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to see this through. I'm glad to see the AFD worked out smoothly and favorably. Kafziel Talk 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

US Army Fifth Corps

Is the above redirect correct? The subject is unfamiliar to me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

US Army Fifth Corps and US Army Fifth Army are separate entities and echelons. You will usually see the former written properly as "V Corps", pronounced "Fifth Corps," and you can see the correct article at V Corps (United States). I will go ahead and point the re-direct to that article for you. --AzureCitizen (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lyudmila Putina

To answer your question on my talk page: I'm not sure; I don't believe I've edited this article, and I'm still at beginner level in my Russian class! I seem to recall that when women take their husband's name, it has a different ending, though, and the Russian names article backs this up: "They are generally inherited from one's parents, although (as with English names) women may adopt the surname of their husband or (very rarely) vice versa....Russian surnames usually end with -ov (-ova for female); -ev (-eva); -in (-ina); -skiy (-skaya)." I'm no expert, though; maybe there's a WikiProject or a list of Russian speakers through Babel who might know more? -- Kateshortforbob 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It directly answered the question. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chad Pennington

His page has some severe spam issues that you might want to look into. Alex Holowczak (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm keeping an eye on it. --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Brewcrewer! Thank you for adding categories to the article Asclepiodotus of Alexandria. You solved my problem. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. It was pretty simple actually, I ripped the cats off Proclus. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Like what?►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


All this (the last two paragraphs):

In a 2006 legal case, Adams was found guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater, and he pleaded no contest in 2003 to driving under the influence, according to medical records.[citation needed]

O

On Tuesday, November 20, 2007, Dr. Adams walked off the set of Larry King Live while on the air, taking off his microphone and ear piece. He told Larry King he did not wish to answer any questions, citing a request by the West family for privacy. He said "I have a tremendous amount of love and respect for the West family. They asked me not to go on. And I've said from the very beginning, I don't have a side in this."[1]

--Brewcrewer (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I have no idea.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So what should I do? Should I bang on the side of my computer? ;-] --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hahah I have no idea. Maybe bring it up on the talk page?►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Adams

Technical question: In the "edit this page" version of the article there are two paragraphs that refuse to show up in the actual article. Would you know why? --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The USA Today ref wasn't closed properly with a slash. I do that all of the time. Alansohn (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You learn from your mistakes. I've made plenty, and this has been one of them. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

De la Vega disambiguation

I don't understand your note on the De la Vega disambiguation page. You said "It does not help to add disambig or hndis tags where the page only contains people who share a surname." But the De la Vega page has both surnames and places? Why is the disambiguation tag unuseful? --Bejnar (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was copy and pasting uncarefully. Technically, no harm was done because there wasn't a dab tag on the page to begin with. Thanks for pointing it out. --Brewcrewer (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Surnames

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Berkowitz religious background

I found an excellent quote concerning Berkowitz's religious background. It is from the 2002 Larry King interview with David Berkowitz himself.

KING: Why did you leave Judaism?

BERKOWITZ: Well, Larry, I haven't left Judaism at all. I feel that I'm totally Jewish. I was born a Jew, I feel I'm going to leave this world a Jew.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/26/lklw.00.html

You also seem to be disputing that his adoptive parents are Jewish. The Crime Library reference clearly states they are, and I will continue to include that information in the article. Graham Wellington (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading further into the interview I discovered that Berkowitz's natural father is also Jewish. Berkowitz this reveals this fact during the 2002 Larry King interview. This means all four of his parents, both birth and adoptive, are Jewish.

KING: Did your natural mother have any problems that might give you a clue to any of the gene problem that might have occurred here?

BERKOWITZ: No, nothing like that at all. I did have a chance to meet her. She was also Jewish, just like my natural father.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/26/lklw.00.html

Graham Wellington (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


As usual your "references" do not back up what you are saying. --Brewcrewer (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trolling and vandalizing my edits. Why do you refuse to discuss edits in the discussion area? Why do you refuse to listen to reason? Read the generous quotes I gave you. My sources clearly back up every edit. Lets not turn this into an ideologically driven edit war. I am Jewish by the way. Graham Wellington (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You say you have sources but the sources do not state what you claim them to state. Stop vandalising. You say "Lets not turn this into an ideologically driven edit war." Well what do you mean by that? What is your ideology? --Brewcrewer (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You slurred me as an anti-semite. How can that be if I'm Jewish? Most of my family died in the holocaust. You deeply offended me. Please be civil and stop vandalizing my edits. You systematically troll my contributions and vandalize them. That is totally immoral and wrong.

Berkowitz clearly states his ethnic/religious background: "Well, Larry, I haven't left Judaism at all. I feel that I'm totally Jewish. I was born a Jew, I feel I'm going to leave this world a Jew." It cannot get any clearer than that.

Berowitz's father is not Falco. His father is Joseph Kleinman. Berkowitz clearly states in the interview: "She was also Jewish, just like my natural father.". Are you saying Berkowitz doesn't know who his own father is?

By refusing to accept Berkowitz's own words, it leads me to believe you have some kind of ideological motive. Graham Wellington (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Answer this question please: Why do you feel that it is so important that he be considered Jewish?

Berkowitz and his family are Jewish, a fact supported by the man's own words.

Quote: "I feel that I'm totally Jewish. I was born a Jew, I feel I'm going to leave this world a Jew."

Quote: "She was also Jewish, just like my natural father."

Please stop deleting solid facts from the Berkowitz article.

Graham Wellington (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Again, I think that you can find more constructive things to do on Wikipedia then to go around "jew labeling." That seems to be the only thing that you feel is important. I wonder why. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Christian-Zionist? I am guessing that you are based on your Pro-Life and John McCain bumper stickers. You may think you are protecting the Jews, but you are not. We don't need your help. We have been doing fine for the last several thousand years. Why would someone trying to protect the Jews, support a bigoted jerk like Sasha Cohen? Kazaks are good people who don't deserve the defamation of character they've received. Yesterday's anti-Semitic joke is today's anti-Kazak joke. I feel sick to my stomach thinking about it. Graham Wellington (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Surnames category shows redirects

You're right, {{R from surname}} was edited by Ceyockey yesterday. I think I see his point, that if a person looked in this category to see all surnames that are represented in WP, the list would be incomplete if the redirects to a single holder of a surname were not shown. Invite him to the discussion on the category's talk page. Chris the speller (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are now in violation of our WP:3RR policy. I'm going to refrain from a block at this time, as the article was protected, but consider yourself on notice that your actions are in violation of our policies and the community spirit of consensus that is supposed to guide us. Please don't do this again. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki:
With all due respect, I disagree with your opinion that I violated WP:3RR. If you look at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions you will see it clearly states that "reverts to remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) [aren't considered reverts]." If you look closely at the edit history you will see that the "reverts" changed per the source that was given.
Additionaly, the editor that I was in an edit war with has a habit of "contributing" to Wikipedia by going to bios of living people that are in trouble with the law, and inserting without sources that "they are of the Jewish faith" (he recently switched and began doing it to non-criminals, but that was after I pointed out his dubious editing to him). Here are two examples: this, this. You might want to apply WP:IGNORE when dealing with such an editor.
But whether I am right or wrong, I will accept your statement as long as I am not told by another administrater that I was correct.
All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think you're stretching things. The inclusion of the fact that the subject's families were Jewish, when the subject himself has discussed this, is hardly "controversial". The point I'd like to make to you has nothing to do with the subject matter, but how you handled it. Please see WP:CONSENSUS...you're supposed to revert once, then discuss. Your edit summary for your first removal of the material was "removed unsouced from editor with habit of "jew labeling"", which is highly problematic. First, if you look at his original edit, the material he added was sourced. Second, your comment about the editor that added it was inappropriate. We don't remove material based on the editor unless it's a banned editor; that comment could easily have been taken as a personal attack. Address the content, not the contributor. If you have a problem with the source, then address that and only that. In this case, you would have made a much better case for yourself if your edit summary had said something like "referenced source does not include this information". You said this in a later reversion, but by then it was a bit too late. Where you failed the most, though, in terms of consensus policy, is that you didn't go discuss this at the talk page. Instead, you tried to use and edit war and edit summaries to do you discussing, that's simply not how it's done. If you're so concerned about BLP, I would have expected you to go to the talk page and address the references that are provided and counter them, or point out thier flaws. Remember, BLP, as you quoted it, is all about the qualities of the sources. You don't address that at all, so I don't put a lot of stock in your argument on those grounds. As it stands at the moment, your opponent has backed his edits up with refs, you haven't discussed at all, and so you don't really have a leg to stand on. What I hope you'd take away from this is that there is a way to address these issues, and it starts with talking about the problem on the discussion page, not with edit warring. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. If you look closely you will realize that the first three reverts did not revert sourced material. This was the source that he was using for the subject's jewishness. Nothing in that source comes close to anything related to the subject's jewishness. He successfully tricked you into thinking that I was removing sourced material sans discussion. I told him 3 times that the "source" did not source the subject and he chose to ignore it. Instead, he started a "discussion" about how he is inserting sourced material. The Larry King source did not show up until the end.
In any case, let's WP:IGNORE the rules for a second. Look at my contributory history. Do you see any sort of agenda pushing? Now look at his. Let's not kid ourselves, do you really think that he is trying to expand world knowledge by inserting "jew" all over the place? Or is it possible that he has some sort of agenda. Looking at your contributory history I see that you are a bright guy. You should discern what is really going on here and realize that a situation like this calls for WP:IGNORE.
All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

R from Surname template

Well, could you explain a little more (drop a note on my talk page) how my adding the category so that tagged redirects are included in Category:Surnames created a problem for you? I might be having a moment of denseness because I'm having difficulty understanding that.

One solution that touches on where you want to go would be to increase the complexity of the template by using a conditional parameter that directs sub-categorization. I'll continue this commentary over at Template talk:R from surname so it is included with the template.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the problem

OK, I understand now the problem - when {{R from surname}} is present on an article (redirect, whatever) and you add a surname category, the article appears in both the sub-category and the main category. I'll go back and undo my change ... so that it won't categorize things into the main Surname category. As for template programming, the gist is to provide an origin parameter so that R-from-surname would categorize something to a subcategory instead of the main Surnames category. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(responder) It would not revert immediately to its original form; my understanding of how this works is that it takes an edit cycle to invoke a template change - i.e. it would have taken an edit cycle (even it the edit is null) to add a redirect to the category and it will take an edit cycle for things to leave the category. My understanding might not be 100% correct on this, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(2nd responder - same msg) Another thing I should try is the purge function (WP:PURGE) which will clear the server cache - I'll do that on the template and the category shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit cycle) That's a cycle of open-edit-save for a page. I've tried purges in a number of ways, including on a sample redirect. What finally worked was to do an edit cycle on a redirect (Bach) which pulled it out of the category. What this means for you is that if you categorize a redirect, it will do what you expect it to - appear only in the subcategory that you choose for it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(not driving me crazy) I think that the transient categorization achieves exactly what you were hoping for. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

68.118.255.104

Thanks for the "heads up". Some of his edits weren't so objectionable, but after this[3] I blocked him for a month due to gross violations of BLP. If you see him reappear with a new IP please let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dershowitz

Hi - are you basing this edit on something? Tvoz |talk 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - you may have seen that there was some odd editing going on about his being Jewish - over-insertion for I don't know what reason - so I wasn't sure why you removed this. I know he's Jewish, and have no idea if he's observant or not, but you seemed definite, so I thought I'd ask. Personally I don't see why his religion belongs in the infobox anyway, and I'm not re-adding it. Thanks for the reply. Tvoz |talk 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that he doesn't consider himself an Orthodox Jew. At this time, I don't have any of is books with me, but when I access them, I will find you the source. Besides, as you pointed out, it doesn't seem appropiate for the infobox. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking around for a more appropriate infobox anyway, but haven't come up with one - I am curious, so if you find it, sure, let me know. thanks Tvoz |talk 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I found a source: this review says that he was raised in an Orthodox family but eventually left Orthodoxy behind. Not clear how observant he is, nor is it relevant to the article. On to the next crisis! Tvoz |talk 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he's clearly not Orthodox. I don't like using the word "observant" because it's a relative term. Everyone can have their own defention of what "observant" means. The definition of Orthodox is much less vague. --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
True. Tvoz |talk 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's on Your Mind

You wrote "notability not established" as the CSD reason. The "notability" criteria usually tends to refer to A7, even though they're technically different – you can assert something but it may still not be notable anyway. Doing a search for "notability" on WP:CSD shows only two locations where it appears: 1, under A7; and 2, under the "non-criteria" section. It was a non-criteria, which is why I declined. hbdragon88 06:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...yeah, I was a bit heavy on Wikipedia jargon. WP:CSD is very strict; we can only delete things that fall under specific criteria, as listed there. If it doesn't meet the criteria, then we can't delete it. It needs to go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. hbdragon88 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes when wanting to give special messages to admins. For instance, if I notice that an article has been repeatedly recreated, I would write {{db|G4, please [[WP:SALT]] it}}. Some people may not use the templates and will instead write the letter and number instsead. hbdragon88 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whisper & Friends

Good catch. A bit of Googling reveals this. Now deleted. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

It was appreciated. Thank you. -----Adimovk5 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I didnt see that It wasnt reference later in the article--Yankees10 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all's cool. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trade

Its a risky trade, not sure if I like it or not. Its a little risky considering what they had to give up to do it, but hopefully it turns out all right. Considering Maybin and Miller (2005, 2006 1st round picks), Eulogio de la Cruz (former starter was said to be a future closer), Trahern (potentially an all star) as well as Rabelo who showed promise as a good defensive catcher. I guess you can't go by potential and its quite clear The Illitch's want to win now. It's also good to see you hate the Yankees. Tigersfan1992 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you feel better about it. Yesterday it was a "horrible trade," but today you're "not sure."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

template

I have been looking for this template. Where do I find it? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find it on Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (shortcut WP:SPA). Kind regards, nancy (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of judges

Hi Brewcrewer, I don't think Wikipedia as any specific criteria on notability of judges. As far as I can tell, they are subject to the same limitations set forth in WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Perhaps we should petition the powers that be for a separate guideline? Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It got me thinking because I noticed in the last few days an afd for some state judge (I can't find it now). I would think that all Federal judges - who require congressional confirmation - should be notable. State Supreme Court judges as well. Any other judge should have a burden of proving notability.
I don't think, however, that it's such an importanat issue to make a seperate criteria, because judges rarely come up in afd's. I was just wondering if you had a past discussion on this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Redirect of Westside family health center

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Westside family health center, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Westside family health center is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Westside family health center, please affix the template {{hangon}} 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) 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you so much for the Barnstar.--Yankees10 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ER

Hey thanks for the kind words on my ER. I'm holding off on RfA for the moment, I'm still in coaching. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →


Brewercrewer, thanks for your support in my RfA. I look forward to living up to yours and others' expectations.
--A. B. (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, enjoy your haikus!

talk page

hey, i honestly didn't mean to. I think it was a glitch of my browser or something because i do believe that i scrolled all the way down to the bottom of all the comments. dposse (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, all's cool. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

car

Brewcrewer,

I am contacting you about the WebRidesTV article. I created the article and can see that some people have labeled it as "salt". I just want to apologize about the recreation of the page so many times. The reason that I had to re-create the article numerous times is because it was my very first one that I created and I was unaware of all of the guidelines that I had to follow when posting an article. I was in contact with many different administrators that helped me out to produce the final article that is up now. The site is actually very notable. The Alexa ratings for the site are quite impressive and significantly increasing every month. As of 12/18/2007 the current U.S. ranking is 2,984, I have provided a link to the traffic details page of WebRidesTV [4]. In terms of notable sources the ones provided with the article are prominent and significant enough to validate the site as Wikipedia worthy. I hope you understand and reconsider your opinion on the deletion of this article, it would be greatly appreciated. By the way I love the name Brewcrewer, that is awesome!

Thank you,

Cal40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal40 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

your signature

you have broken css in your signature, please fix it asap. →AzaToth 15:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Report hat

Glad to be of some use - even on an article I know absolutely nothing about!! :o) Happy Editing! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Milwaukee Brewers fan?

With the username "Brewcrewer," I assume that you are a Milwaukee Brewers fan. Is that true? If so, who is your favorite player, past or present? And your fave Brewers moment? - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB for actors

Hi. Perhaps IMDB may be considered acceptable for films; but for actors, especially in light of WP:BLP issues, it usually is not considered acceptable. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) Note #5 Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge of subject, courtesy, and common sense

Re your tag on Avalyn Hunter. 1) You know nothing about the subject and as such should refrain from "wild guessing"; 2) The talk page is tagged as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and as such Wikipedia courtesy dictates posting any concern there, stating that you know nothing on the subject and allowing Project members to decide; and 3) Use common sense so that you don't waste the time of people who make real and substantial contributions to Wikipedia. - Thanx Handicapper (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jon Henry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Henry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Henry. Thank you. Dawn bard (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of J Southern(wrestler)

A tag has been placed on J Southern(wrestler) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I think there was a mixup there, I DID pick the original article, but as I was using Twinkle to mark it for CSD, you did the redirect, causing the confusion, sorry about that! Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob, all's cool. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Marcus Ambivulus

A tag has been placed on Marcus Ambivulus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please satisfy my curiousity

Please satisfy my curiousity.

Is brewcrewer your first wiki-id?

Your wiki-id is about three months old. You burst full-blown, engaging in deletion fora. Unfottunately, in my experience, this is often the sign a wiki-id is a sockpuppet. There are legitimate reasons why a contributor would change their wiki-id. But, don't people who establish multiple wiki-ids leave an prominent explanation as to why they established those multiple IDs. Did I miss your explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You voiced a keep for a couple of articles

I looked at your contribution history for the last couple of weeks. About seventy percent delete; about twenty-five percent merge; and about five percent keep. Care to explain why regional malls in the USA, like Oakdale Mall, merit coverage while Guantanamo captives don't? Did you check the SOLE reference to Oakdale Mall, [5]?

Care to explain why Mark Dicey just got a {{notability}} tag?

Have you ever considered trying to raise your concerns on the article's talk pages, rather than jumping immediately to nominations for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Progress spacecraft/Launch

At your earliest convenience, please express your thoughts at Talk:Progress spacecraft/Launch. (sdsds - talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the {{smile}} on my talk page! No worries, really. (For reference the above talk page is now Template Talk:Progress spacecraft/Launch courtesy of User:Addhoc.) (sdsds - talk) 05:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The royal gazette (Thailand)

Hi back! Thanks for the help. Pawyilee (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ProBusinessTools

The page ProBusinessTools is not blatant advertising. This company has grown from just a few programmers, to a huge software solution within its industry. This page is no different than other small business pages. Please tell me what I need to change to the page so it will not be deleted. I will change whatever you suggest, but I do not see anything that would generate a tag of blatant advertising. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepeopleeaters (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the page has already been deleted, and I apologize if that upset you. A corportation must comply with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for it to have a Wikipedia article. Assuming that ProBusinessTools does meet that standard, it must be proven with the Wikipedia:Verifiability standard. If you feel that ProBusinessTools can meet those two standards then recreate it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Template that Cf38 used

Template:Db-vandalism-notice and Template:Db-csd-notice-custom i think he used.  Sunderland06  20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you know where the actual template is, so that I can use it? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

k,thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

You wrote:

"There is one way for a person to be notable according to Wikipedia policies, and that is if he/she 'received significant coverage in reliable sources.'"

I did a google on the phrase "received significant coverage in reliable sources". The first hit was Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy. It is a guideline. Is there a wikidocument that includes this phrase, which is a policy, I am overlooking?

If there is no actual policy that states this, I'd like to ask you to be more careful about policy creep in future. Please don't claim guidelines are policies.

Guidelines shouldn't be ignored, even if they aren't policies. This guideline however after stating it is generally accepted, and before the passage you quote, states it "...should be treated with common sense."

I am disappointed you didn't choose to really address my explanation of how captives held in extrajudicial detention differ from convicted felons serving out a sentence under the rule of law. Geo Swan (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Dicey

I also beleive that the Mark Dicey article is a copyright violation and i have put that warning on the page.  Sunderland06  20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

UCIN

1) Why the move to Romanian Filmmakers Union? They are almost always called "UCIN". We don't put IBM at "International Business Machines". Their stage equivalent is, indeed, at UNITER. 2) I notice that you have left "the" out of the name. The definite article is more or less compulsory in translating the name of the organization, because "Uniunea" is the definite article form. If the definite article were not part of the name, it would be "Uniuneă". (In Romanian, the difference is not even considered a diacritic, it is considered two distinct letters.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not that familar with the subject. If you feel that the move doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations), then revert it. You might have to get an admin to do it, though; I'm afraid that it was moved around to much already. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin. - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Hartley

Erm, would you like to give me longer than 30 seconds to add material please? This was one of Australian Rugby Leagues top referees and radio commentators for many years. You could at least check on google before sticking tags like this on. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No harm done, it was only a prod. Sorry if I offended you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok no worries, amazed at the speed is all. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: {{prod2}}

Done. I forgot about that. Thanks! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of 'Reborn in Chaos'

The article was blank, and I assumed having atleast a tracklisting there would encourage others to do all the nice formatting that I'm unfamiliar with.InvertedSaint (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about the album. I just nominated because the article was basically empty. If you know that the album is notable then put "hangon" template on. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, it got deleted anyway. I'm supprised there's no page there already, since it's quite a popular album.InvertedSaint (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. You can always recreate it when you're in the mood. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Shijaku Katsura

Hi, I noticed you just tagged the article I'm putting together on the Japanese rakugo comedian Shijaku Katsura...as per the notice I left a comment on the article's talk page; could I please have a few minutes to finish putting the article together? -Tadakuni (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that you weren't done with the article yet, but I tagged it just to be sure. Sorry. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright...thanks. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

tim shapiro

hi there, i was wondering what you feel needs to be changed on that page I just created. it is about an engineer that has gotten lots of press recently with his work (yep, me). I linked to artists I am associated with. I think I am as relavant (spelling) as "Mark Goodwin" for example... who is linked to one of the bands I link to... and his page is an ad for the drums he plays, and nothing else. Any help would be greatly appreciated... as it is still a work in progress (i hope) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idoaudio (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1939 baseball season

I think that there should be a page for every season, just give me time Tigersfan1992 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool Jake (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).
  jj137 ♠ 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Lindsay Lohan

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lindsay Lohan. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Even someone with 12,000 edits can make a mistake. And someone with 12,000 edits should have learned a bit about the five pillars of Wikipedia and not be so sensitive about a good faith revert. Now, if you'll take another look, you might notice that the cleanup template says "This article may require cleanup", not "This section may require cleanup". Templates for an entire article can go at the bottom of the article as well as the top. Please don't remove it before you cleanup the entire article. Ward3001 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

Hey there, thanks for the note. The version you tagged included the statement "They were signed to Forgotten Empire Records in April 2007." - this to me is an indication of notability. Combined with the current state of the article it's certainly asserted. Thanks for your comment :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when my speedies are removed etc., I generally leave an apology note on the creator's talk page. Not saying you have to, but it's something to think about ;) Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't saying you have to - it's just what I do. And generally notable record labels only sign "notable" artists...if you disagree you're welcome to AfD, but I think it'd survive. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly Kisses (album)

Although I can understand your PROD for Butterfly Kisses (album), the album is indeed notable. General consensus on Wikipedia is that if an artist is notable, so are the artist's albums. Jeff Carson easily meets WP:MUSIC (three albums on a major label, multiple hits on the country charts, subject of several reliable sources); therefore, all of his albums would generally be considered notable as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lynam (band)

Top Heatseekers and Top Independent Albums are indeed two of the major Billboard album charts. The wording for criterion 2, however, seems to imply a hit on a major singles chart (e.g. the Billboard Hot 100); Lynam hasn't charted a single yet, it seems. The band does seem to be on the edge of notability, given that they seem to have toured with several other bands (criterion 4). Also, Mars Electric (of which Lynam's lead singer was a former member) appears to be marginally notable -- they had two albums, one on Columbia Records and one on Avenzia (sp?). The latter label doesn't have a Wikipedia page but seems to have gotten a bit of press coverage, so it could be notable. If Mars Electric's notability can be proven, then Lynam would meet criterion 9 as well. Finding sources has proven rather difficult, since there are plenty of other things named Lynam and Mars Electric... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Boogie Allen

Well, I'm just going to re-create the page when the season starts up. And he's also had two key interceptions in a small amount of playing time. John (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunk Ryders Records

Hi. I recently posted an article regarding Dunk Ryders Records which had recently been deleted. However it has come to my attention that minutes after my posting it has yet again been deleted. Why is this? I hope to hear from you just as quick as you deleted the page!

Thanks!

Some people say the glamour of spending hours re-stubbing radio station articles and fixing infoboxes is prize enough for working on the WPRS. I say those people are nuts. Thanks for the barnstar! Oh, and have a safe and happy Christmas (or winter holiday of your choice). - Dravecky (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Hi I am starting these pages so User:John Hill the expert on central asian history with his small library of books can hopefully expand them. I must admit I don't like to see tags plastered all over the pages within seconds of posting lol as it makes me look foolish and as if I'm not an experienced wikipedian and one of the typical new editors who churn out the most useless of articles. Hopefully these can all be fully developed. Merry christmas!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool. You see I wish I had more time to devote to my Tibetan interests but as you may know I do a lot of work over many subjects on wikipedia although much of my editing time seems to be dominated with film -as there is so much missing!! Hopefully the 7th rinpoche can de developed like the Tenzin Gyatso article itself -wikipedia can only be taken to the next level I think by specialist areas of coverage which may require special reference books and a compilation of primary sources. There is so much "hidden" from the world so to speak -it is one of my core principles to try to gain access to "the sum of human knowledge" in parts of the world where you would never dream of finding info on except here. Potentially biographies of people in parts of the world most of us know little about can be covered in detail eventually -it will take time!! Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio 2007-08

Hi. You just posted all this stuff on the page i just made, i know its not finished yet i was editing it while u posted all that stuff. I think itll be a while before i finish it, its kinda late and i dont feel like doing the whole thing in one shot lol, give me some time and it'll be done properly ok? write me back or message me, thanks --Muppeteer (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:BentonIN-geo-stub

That particular stub class doesn't currently exist, no, though because of the increase in the number of stub geography articles the trend is to break them up by county. Huwmanbeing ★ 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just started working on these articles only a few minutes ago, so yes, I'm working on it during this sitting and you needn't fix anything. Thanks Huwmanbeing ★ 02:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sriram Das

I'll get started on that now. Thanks for letting me know. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

John F. Reif

Hi. John F. Reif is the name that his is best known as. That is way I changed it. Rougher07 (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD Replay Publishing

Hello brewcrewer. I'd like to ask you to take a second look at the Replay Publishing page, which was nominated for AfD. I've added a number of references to the page, as well as beefing up the article text and links. Any further constructive criticism you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. By the way, I take it you are a Milwaukee Brewers fan? Kezzran (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Replay Publishing AfD update, and talk page notes. You indicate on my talk page that the notability is still iffy, which is something I'm struggling with. I've read the information on notability, and also looked at similar pages ( thus my multiple references to APBA ), but I'm missing where this game fails to meet notability in comparison. It's mentioned on a number of prominent gaming sites, discussed in two print books, and even received an article in a newspaper. I'm truly trying to learn here, so any enlightenment you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps an example of what would make it notable could help me understand where it falls short. Thank you again for your time. This is my first attempt at a page, so I'm swimming with the sharks! :) By the way, I am a Brewer fan. Kezzran (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
brewcrewer, thank you for the link left on my talk page. I had read through this document previously, and I have attempted to provide as many reliable sources (published books, newspaper) as I could find for the subject. I'm wondering specifically where my article falls short in comparison to others, the main one I've pointed to being APBA? Please note that I'm not attempting to be contentious, but truly am having difficulty discerning where Replay Publishing falls short and other articles do not. It would seem that the company/games meet the notability requirements as well as the secondary and independent source standards. Thank you again for your time. Kezzran (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking at my page. You note that the newspaper reference could be assumed to be reliable, though it isn't well-known, which I think is a fair assessment. How can I make the book references more weighty? They both discuss Replay Baseball to some degree, though I don't have a copy of either available to provide exact text. In comparison to the APBA page, which I've been using as my reference, mine would seem to be better-sourced and documented. That page has 5 external references, 3 of which point back to the official company website. The other two links are to tabletopbaseball.org, a site I also reference, and a Yahoo games group page. Perhaps you can see how I'm confused as to how APBA passes muster for notability/sourcing, while Replay Baseball does not. :) Thank you again for taking time to discuss. Kezzran (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points on my talk page brewcrewer, thank you for the clarification. I assume the other article we've been discussing simply has not been scrutinized as mine has, and thus has remained alive to-date. :) Hopefully my article can be tightened up and live to see another day. Sincerely,Kezzran (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my candidateship

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my request for adminship. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His outside-the-box thinking

the info in the article was very good, but it wasn't supposed to be in a seperate article. I merged the info into Billy Martin, where it belonged. I wanted to welcome the creator and tell him that the article was merged, but as the page was deleted, I don't know who the creator was. Can you tell me who the creator was? Or you can just welcome him and tell him that his article was merged? best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bjrbbhaw81 created the article. Feel free to tell him about the merge. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah. Figured I'd also pass a welcome to him. --Alabamaboy (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that.--Alabamaboy (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Tyra

Perhaps more work has gone into the article, but the sources provided I still find insufficient, notability-wise. Also I am curious that the creating editor's only edits have been to the Tyra article, his/her user name appears to be a derivative of Tyra's, and in their upload of Image:Thomas Tyra USN 1956.jpg, they claim that to hold the copyright of the photograph, which makes me wonder if they are not a relative of Tyra's perhaps? (And if not, I'd like to know how their tagging of the photograph as "public domain" is legitimate.) I don't mean to be presumptuous, but the article still looks more like a personal memorial than something suitable for an encyclopedia. Ford MF (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)