Misplaced Pages

Archives

Archive 1 (Sep 2007-Dec 2007) - Archive 2 (Jan 2008-)

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfA

Brewcrewer! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Miniature Tigers

Hi - AfD is here. The previous article was definitely NN (in fact it was probably a speedy - one sentence) but the current one is much better, so I wouldn't G4 it anyway. It's certainly got reliable sources and might even squeak past WP:MUSIC (national tour?) Black Kite 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Boodlesthecat block

I think it wasn't, as I've already mentioned on Boodles' page. I agree with Tiptoety's assessment of the situation. Hersfold 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

this sounds like a case of wikibonked. That said, 30-10 and 9-1 is beautifuel! StarM 22:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm burned out :-) Maybe I'll start writing New York Giants win the Super Bowl again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No no no because then we would jinx them. They owe me a good birthday present next week, and I'm actually rooting for the little boys tonight just because I want a cushion over the Redskins before we play them in two weeks. Dallas has a whole month to fall off before 12/14. StarM 23:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ow wow, what day is your b-day? Maybe I'll vandalize your page or something on that day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

November 23, I wouldn't expect anything less of a birthday present on wiki. Oh no, I linked a date, are the date police going to come after me now? StarM 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I always suspected this was really you. Geez! How many alter egos do you have?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll just never know will you :p With as late as baseball is starting next Spring they may well be playing on my birthday as well StarM 01:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of involvement

The definition of involvement for the I-P editing restrictions is here. There isn't any mechanism to make a proposal of the type you suggested. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well a full reading of the linked paragraph surely shows that there is a "mechanism" for the proposal. Indeed, it would be very un-Misplaced Pages like for a rule to go forward because there is no mechanism for it undoing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you've read the pararaph, I guess you now realise your proposal on the WP:AE page wasn't valid. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the proposal was valid because it was just that - a proposal. How I would go about manifesting the proposal (if I choose to) is a different story. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to wriggle out of this, rather than just admit you made a mistake. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to respond to your proposal on the WP:AE page because it's invalid. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wiggle myself out of anything. Of course I didn't know about the specific procedure of moving an admin from an uninvolved status to an involved status. But specific procedure is never an impediment here at Misplaced Pages. Once the proposal is put forward and accepted by a consensus, the correct avenue for manifesting the proposal will take care of itself.. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain, that isn't correct. If you carefully read the paragraph, there isn't any such mechanism. If you want the last word on this, then by all means go ahead and take it. However, that doesn't alter the fact you are wrong, and your proposal is invalid. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-vandalize...

Just wanted to restore the blanking.

Lots of funny stuff going on at your talk. What happened? Some info had to get permanently removed? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and JD was helping me. People don't get the "don't connect the two user names" and this is an indigent meatpuppet who's irritating me as well. He's been final warned, luckily. I don't care about your "vandalism" but the timing was such that it blanked the content I was restoring. StarM 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

When I "vandalized" your page it was empty. I was in a state of hysteria because I thought you were leaving us again :-) Why don't you block that IP ? It seems like he is up to pretty egregious stuff. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have e-mail StarM 02:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bumiller ref

Fixed, thanks for the head's up. -- Avi (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Volcker

Volcker is Jewish: http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3619625,00.html

I'm not sure where in the article this information should belong, but it seems just as noteworthy here as in the Greenspan or Bernanke articles. I added the category, but couldn't find an appropriate place in the article. Given that there is a reliable source for this information, please don't revert this information. Adlerschloß (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the link. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Geithner

I know why people are putting that edit in; it's an attempt to be "first" with an edit identifying something. The religion of the officiant at a wedding is not necessarily indicative of the religion of the participants (or even one of them). I'm not reverting, because this is at least better than outright stating a religion, but I do feel like this is pretty close to a WP:WEASEL way of getting information in the article that wouldn't otherwise make it. It is cited, though, (and I know you're not pushing any POV) so I'll move on.  Frank  |  talk  00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's pretty informative. It at least tells us that even if he isn't Christian he had no problem with Christian clergy conducting his wedding ceremony. Whoever cares about his religion/ethnicity this information will be a big deal. I also think that most readers will be intelligent enough to understand that it does mean that he is Christian. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

THINK ABOUT IT, SON

YOU JUST "MOVED ZIG"... DID YOU DO IT FOR GREAT JUSTICE??? :) :) -- Y not? 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I try not to think about things (that's why I spend so much time on WP) so this was a tough one for me. I finally figured out that I should just Google the term, and then, lo and behold, I got it. This Google thing, it's not bad. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME -- Y not? 14:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

_{I know, but I've been shocking prognosticators for years already. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)}

Do you like pastrami too, friend? :) -- Y not? 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, happy to see you've got the piece out. How was it? My greatest personal dilemmas are whether to eat the pastrami pieces I find under my car seats. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration

Mumbai Chabad House

• here, excepts below

"The Bullet-riddled facade of the Mumbai Chabad House, Thursday."

"Nariman House, Runyan said, was the original name of the Chabad House, which was purchased two years ago."

Oh, ok, thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that the building included residential apartments as well? Epson291 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into the source you gave me, thanks, and the DYK looks good. Epson291 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Black Tornado into Nariman House

You kinda started a merge effort but didn't finish it, please provide your rationale at Talk:Nariman_House#Merger_proposal. I did the rest for you... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My intention was just to get the creator's attention and see what s/he has to say. If they had no problem with it I was just going to go ahead and merge it. It's not something that requires a major discussion. However, I now realized that the current info in the article is incorrect. It wasn't the Nariman House operations that were called Black Tornado. All the commando operations were included in that named operation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Black Tornado

You're just getting caught up in the emotional drama. Sure it was a big operation, but what content about it do we have to justify its own article other than a single line? That and all the rest of the links and stuff are all about the other article November 2008 Mumbai attacks. You just want to see that name in the page title, thats all. Do you want to bet that this wont work out like you want it to? Somoene else will deal with this. Go ahead, I'm not bothered to bicker over this, do what you like. --Matt57 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can you assume that only one line can be written about a large-scale commando operation? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Its called "non-notable" when there's not enough material for any article. Read up on the policies. --Matt57 04:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Which policy? Should this article have been deleted as non-notable because it was only one line?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell who is right, remember my words above. --Matt57 04:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which words? I agree that eventually the article will be merged/redirected. My only issue is that no good reason was given for unilaterally closing the discussion and not giving other editors a chance at improving the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies are more important than all kinds of subjective reasoning which you're trying to give. Read that link below WP:SS. I told you what would happen, now go and think about how you've been approaching the topic and why you were wanting to do what you were doing. People can expand the topic within the main article. Thats the policy. You dont start Blah blah 123 and then put in a single line "I dont know what blah blah is but very soon we'll have some information". Thats silly. --Matt57 14:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, in all the discussions regarding the merge this is the first time you mentioned a non-subjective argument based on WP policy/guideline, and coincidentally you mentioned the same inapplicable guideline that Sandstein just plopped down on this talk page. The WP:SS guideline applies to spinoffs - when an article should be spun off a larger article. This guideline is inapplicable to this situation. Nobody is trying to spin off any article. We are merely trying to create a new article. The proper guideline is WP:STUB. Check it out. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh yea, ok. That policy pages says:

Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.

Why dont you go spend your time in more useful stuff, there's a lot of help that WP needs. It definitely does not need what you're doing here. --Matt57 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected it again, for the reason that we should make our articles evolve in accordance with WP:SS: the information should first be developed in the main article, then possibly given a section there; only if there is too much information to usefully include in the main article, it should be spun off into a separate article. Developing each subtopic as an article to start with creates confusion and duplication of effort, to say nothing of notability issues.  Sandstein  09:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Matt57 14:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

no mistake

Several editors made the same argument. So instead of going to each I made a general one. I think straw men are very unproductive. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I only see one other editor that argued that there were previous attacks in Mumbai, but whatever. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

O Come on please, I know that it will still be my creation. I least bother about that. What I'm saying is that why not wait for some time? Kensplanet_{Contributions} 08:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should wait just in case there will be another terrorist attack in Mumbai in the next month. If there unfortunately is another one in December we can revert to the earlier version. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)