User talk:Brewcrewer

Mike'd Up On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike'd Up, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Baluchistan honor killings Hi, thanks for the positive comment about my work on Israr Ullah Zehri. However, I'm not happy about your edit, or about the creation of the article entitled Baluchistan honor killings, which I think seriously understates the scale of the problem. There's no factual basis to assert that the phrase 'Baluchistan honor killings' refers only to a single incident, i.e. the five women who were buried alive in August 2008. Please refer to this Times article: [Three teenagers buried alive in 'honour killings'], which states that honor killings are common in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan, and cites the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The only distinguishing feature of the August incident in Balochistan is that the women were buried alive. Please either correct or reverse your edits - thanks. Rubywine (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Not sure what you're getting it. Would you like to rename the article, would you like the article deleted? Please explain. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I'm saying that the article massively understates the scale of the problem of honor killings, by stating that the title of the article refers to a single incident, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention. The practice of 'honor killing' is widespread and commonplace. Is there a good reason to have an article about honor killings in Baluchistan, as opposed to any other region? I can't think of one. I'm not a deletionist, so I'll leave the decision up to you - but I'd certainly prefer that your edit to Israr Ullah Zehri was reversed. Thanks. Rubywine (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I understand that it is commonplace, however we can only write what we are told by media sources. This specific honor killing got a lot of coverage in media sources so it was eligible for its own article and own "name". Stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad is another such example. The main article, honor killing covers the general topic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I disagree. There are plenty of other reputable, published sources which we're allowed to use besides media sources. The Asian Human Rights Commission and the records of the Pakistani Parliament are perfectly appropriate sources. In fact I would go so far as to say that slanting articles away from serious, scholarly research towards flash-in-the-pan media coverage (especially when it leads to the trivialisation of a really important issue!) is precisely what an encyclopaedia shouldn't be doing. Rubywine (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think we really disagree. International media sources are the easiest sources to use because they are in English and they are easily found. I agree that serious scholarly-researched articles might be more appropriate for WP, but it for sure doesn't mean that "flash-in-the-pan" article should be deleted. When someone more competent than I writes a "scholarly - researched" article I would be more than glad to incorporate (and then delete, if deemed necessary) my "flash-in-the-pan" article into the greater article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) In reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard here In Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, in the subsection "deletion discussion" under section "Processes", it says "Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page." In the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in the subsection called "The following are practices that should be avoided:", it says: Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge, which can't be done as edit histories of merged text must be preserved (see also Wikipedia:GFDL). People making very complicated recommendations like Delete unless the article about his father already contains a section about the previous owner of the car, in which case Keep, or if the template on the family article is modified to contain a section about the family heritage and the brothers article has the information about the will removed because this information is duplicative and may fit better in the lists, in which case Merge to a better target, or redirect if the target article is already too long. Makes the closing administrator's job unreasonably difficult. The person making the recommendation should go find out all of those details, and make one succinct recommendation. Just to describe the research process that should be followed and expect somebody else to do it, is not helpful. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Please be more careful when adding comments - you lost an "l" in someone else' comment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) AFD You reverted my reversion immediately just now. I was about to post to the talk page to explain my reversion so your action was prhaps too hasty. Anyway, the text in question is best left while the matter is discussed so that other editors can see what we are talking about. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Re: Technical help Hi there, been on holiday so sorry for the delay. The problem was in the Iconstasis subbage. You need to close html tags, so where your Iconstasis subpage starts with a "div" tag, it needs to end with a "/div" tag. I fixed it for you - take a look. It seems to work fine now. Incidentally the image:Symbol support vote.svg should be used for Good Articles, rather than the FA star, which should really be only for featured articles. Good luck with getting some more symbols! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Umm, I'm not some techie guru you know... I'm not sure what the problem is with your archives, the second one looks OK to me, just a bit empty? All that I know about archiving would come from Help:Archiving a talk page, so you're better off getting it from source rather than it filtering through my addled mind! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Re:Tosontsengel (disambig) ...unless there aren't more than 2 Tosontsengel which I do not know. --katpatuka (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ITN On 18 September, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 Yemeni American embassy attack, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. --SpencerT♦C 11:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC) No problem...article do better if they have more than one person's input. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Joe sernio A tag has been placed on Joe sernio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Re: help offered The Muhammad Ali article is very poorly sourced. One problem I have is over the term Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital. It is now called Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital but was once called NY Presbyterian Hospital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Presbyterian_Hospital In 1984, when Ali was admitted to the hospital, it was called NY Presbyterian Hospial, so..what do I call the hospital...best regards and thanks in advance. I think i can do one of those Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital thingies that you gave me on the newbie pages..not sure though http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E7DC173BF93AA2575AC0A962948260 btw, as you can see from the above posted link...it is half broken. This is not really a big deal because I can go to a local public library and confirm it on microfiche. Johndoeemail (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Hi there. I will have to take a look at it a different time, my dumb real life doesn't give me too much time these days. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Cappy (Kirby) A tag has been placed on Cappy (Kirby), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Olly150 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Kirbys and Cappys Sorry about the quick redirect - I was actually trying to do what you were apparently doing, averting a quick delete. I put the redirect in for quick overwriting to save the spot. There's quite a bit out there in several contexts about the Cappys... now I'll just get out of your way. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like it is back to a redirect. I don't have a strong opinion about it either way (I know nothing about the subject), but I get anal when it gets tagged and deleted for the wrong reasons. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I had to move fast after seeing it tagged - apparently, the Cappys have several roles in the Kirby game/anime series (I'm familiar only with the latter, thanks to my daughter). Apparently, the tagger knew even less about it than either of us... but have fun with it! 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 24.61.243.203 (talk · contribs) You have a response in my page. -- Alexf42 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) WaMu Well, there are $28.4 billion reasons to think that senior debt is not entirely irrelevant. And they are the one who saved the depositors. Otherwise the FDIC fund would be bankrupt today. I hardly see this as not belonging to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.119.31 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Malalaï Kakar Hi. If you are the editor who's additions I changed when I made this edit [1] please don't take it personally. Understand that I wasn't referring to you directly when I used the word "you". I really meant "in general, one shouldn't" rather than "you, Brewcrewer, can't". I've re-added the information [2], expanded it to keep the information from (what was presumably) your edit so as not to offend you and added a few references from well respected and reliable sources to support the information I've added. If you have any problems please feel free to let me know or revert the changes. Ha! (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but you caught me in a bad mood (My stupid Mets). Your point was well taken, and I shouldn't have put her age as 40 if the ref says late 30's. But in any case, her exact age is not really relevant to the actual story. Therefore, the current status of the article, with multiple references to multiple possible ages looks a bit silly. We shold decide on an age, and move on. Whatever. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Notability of Comic Relief(band) Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Comic Relief(band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Comic Relief(band) seems 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Comic Relief(band), 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) 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Hi, much thanks I did not know you only had to do: to make a reference. I thought it was more WYSIWYG. I was looking at the bottom of the articles to figure out how to make a reference. But there was obviously nothing there. I thought when you edited the Mike and the Mad Dog article, you made reference 59, reference 60, then made reference 58, reference 59. I did not know that the Wikipedia software did it automatically. I was looking at the bottom of the page instead of looking at where the reference was created. ...I am rolling know.. As far as Columbia-Press is concerned, I have been going there every month for the last 20 years and stopped going there about 2 years ago. So they changed there name within the last 2 years I guess. This is probably just another reminder that verifiable sources are more important than personal experience. You were not confused...I was :) That Muhammad Ali article is seriously missing some citations and, my goodness, he must be one of the most quotable persons in the history of sports. But thanks so very much for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC) New Page Patrolling Template:Uw-patrolled NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Tenenbaum A tag has been placed on Tenenbaum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Yecril (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry the whole mess happened. In my partial defense, here in Milwaukee nobody would misspell "Tannenbaum" that way, and it really does look implausible to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) RFA Thanks Brewcrewer, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)