User talk:Drew30319/Archive Jun 2007

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Drew30319, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Now, to answer your questions- the problem of the blacklist is rather technical and I'm not the person to ask about that. You might get more success posting a question on the Brandt talk page about what to do or to the technical section of the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Now as to the second matter- I'm not sure his criticism of slashdot is at this point notable enough to be included in the article (I in fact would rather not have the section on the slashdot commentary at all, but other editors seem to disagree with me). JoshuaZ 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks and courtesy

To be honest, I don't recall what we disagreed on about the Daniel Brandt article, which suggests it was a run-of-the-mill disagreement. If you edit Wikipedia long enough, you will learn that they are not personal. It is not uncommon for two active editors to be on the same side of a dispute in one article and the opposite sides on another. WAS 4.250 and I bump into one another a lot. We will probably see one another again as well, I hope under happier circumstances.

The strength of your reaction suggests an emotional connection to Jennifer. If that is the case, I am sorry for your loss, but understand that this is a reason that Wikipedia strongly suggests not writing articles about people you know. I routinely propose very similar articles for deletion, and vote "delete" when others nominate them. The procedure is hardly capricious -- lots of people will look at the nomination before a decision is made, and deletion is far from automatic.

In any case, attacking a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive is against policy. (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA). I understand that I hit a nerve with the prod, so I don't believe you really meant to do anything wrong, but Wikipedia is a bit rough-and-tumble at times, and we need to avoid taking things personally if this whole thing is to work.

Good night, and happy editing. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Cabal Mediation

I've agreed to investigate your cabal case. I'll look over the article for deletion, and make comments as I normally would. I can not guarentee that your article will not be deleted (until I read it) but I'll do my best to make sure your side gets a fair shake. →Bobby← 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente AfD

Hi again. I've looked over the article and made my comments on the AfD page. As it stands now, the article is probably going to go since it doesn't demonstrate why Crecente is notable (per Wikipedia's definition of notability). Before this happens, copy the article's contents to some place on your userspace so that you can bring it up to par. If I were you, I'd look at WP:Bio and try to insert enough information and sources to prove how Jennifer satisfies at least oone of the criteria. I think your best bet is:

"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

If you can strongly demonstrate the event's newsworthiness (using as many published articles as you can find) and also show renown (I'd use the memorial fund to do this) then there is no reason that the article should be deleted upon recreation. Please note that when you recreate the article, it needs to be substantially altered from the deleted version or someone will come along and place a speedy tag on it. If this happens anyway, use the holdon tag to get more time, and contact me via my talk page (left arrow in my sig) so I am alerted and can give my two cents. I'm sorry there is not more I can do for you at this time, but I encourage you to keep working on the article, and hopefully it will soon be a premanent fixture on WP. As to your issue with the other editor, I will leave a message on their talk page, but there is not much I can do beyond this. If you want sanctions imposed, you will need to contact an administrator. Have a great day! →Bobby← 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I believe that legislation that we expect to pass in Texas will add sufficient notoriety to get most of the information re-added in the future. Additionally as we continue to grow there will be more articles in the mainstream press regarding the organization. As the organization gains more credibility then the impetus for the organization's creation (Jennifer) will become more relevant within Wikipedia's "rules."

I had no idea it was so difficult and there were so many regulations surrounding articles on here. I got the initial idea to add this article because I located many other such articles on murder victims. Obviously I don't want to point out these articles because then they might get deleted! I don't want my (mis)adventure to become an issue for others.

Much thanks again! Drew30319 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Good luck with the legislation! →Bobby← 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann's Group

A tag has been placed on Jennifer Ann's Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article 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 (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Your comment to me regarding Ukranian sausage stated "Google is helpful only when you have at least a minimal idea of the topic" was unnecessary and insulting. As a helpful reminder please visit the following official policy article.

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

Happy editing!

Drew30319 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was written as a general-purpose cautionary remark about yet another abuse of google during votes for deletion. You may also see that votes for deletion frequently mention {ab)use of google hit counts and other superficial arguments. My remark was fueled by another quite stupid case I cleaned just days ago: there were two very prolific asteroid discoverers with information close to nothing. And some well-meaning editors acrambled from google scraps of information about several different persons with the same name, It was very funny (and sad) to read that Seiji_Ueda, besides discovering 698 ! asteroids was at the same time a theoretical biologist, a surgeon, a mathematitian and worked at Kawasaki Steel.

So please take my advise: please judge and seriously edit articles which are within your range or reasonable knowledge. For example, you are very welcome to fix my non-ideal english, and I will not mind if you even call it "atrocious", which would be a judgement in a reasonable direction .

Good luck, `'mikkanarxi 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club sauce (disambiguation) and Strand Theater/Temp

You have recently removed deletion notices from these two pages. Can you please check the reasons for deletion before removing, in this case both were administrative tidying up. In the first case the disambig has no pages to disambiguate, in the second case this a temporary page accidently created in the mainspace. Nuttah68 08:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Towers Residence Hall

Please do not removed AfD notices. I'd recommend just voting on the issue. at AfD. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. I apologize. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brian Crecente AfD]]

Hi, Drew.

First, I'm not sure if it's stated somewhere that you must be logged in to submit an article for AfD, but...well, somebody did, so I guess it can be done.

As for the google search, what I turned up were pretty much things along the lines of gaming blogs. This brings into play the issue with what constitutes a reliable source, and in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, blogs are considered generally unreliable. We don't even link to Slashdot story entries if we can help it, excepting those that are themselves either a subject directly or a note of interest. So unfortunately, the google search turns up nothing we can really use. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente

Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a user page and I'll be more than happy to leave a message on your talk page. Non-users are not supposed to create an AfD. Drew30319 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify what I mean by "non-users." I'm referring to anonymous users. Drew30319 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah I see where this is going. Was reviewing everything again and noticed a "fanboi" comment in the afd. I won't even get into fanboy tripe with you, I assure you that is not my position. However, I am heavily against biased media, when I noticed an anonymous user (supposedly Brian Crecente) commenting on the Sony bias in the discussion for the kotaku article. It set off bells. I've never seen an official party editing their own/related articles. So I think you could understand where I am coming from on that view, if it really was him or not...

Anyways, usually when I start on one article, this being kotaku... I will expand into the articles within it, this case it was the Brian Crecente and now Jennifer Ann Crecente. I'm all up for keeping these articles, but I've never found much for sources and that's why I feel deletion is necessary. I feel that the entire source policy is flawed, but in these cases I feel it isn't.

As for my position on being anonymous, I love it. I see no point in registering when I can contribute pretty much the same and not be followed by vandals or other anon/users with a vendetta. I understand alot of anonymous users vandalise wikipedia like madmen, but I highly doubt there aren't anons with true, good intentions.

I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt. 64.231.250.169 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Rachel Moran

The debate is closed. Please don't continue to edit it. I have reverted.--Doc^g 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

Done - here --pgk 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente

I have speedy deleted this article as a recreation. I saw that you used the legislation as a justification for moving it back out of User space, but I do not agree that that is enough to overcome the reasoning given at the AFD debate. At this point, as I'm pretty sure you will disagree with my actions, I encourage you to contest this at WP:DRV. Deletion Review is the proper place to try to overturn AFD deletions if the circustances have changed. - TexasAndroid 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]