User talk:Brainslug

Gone

I don't have faith in the admins, and so I won't be participating any further.

Welcome!

Hello, Brainslug, 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! Michaelas10 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Adding Trivia I Just Removed.

I just edited the Aly & AJ page removing the following trivia:

Aly & AJ have been playing piano since they were six.
In a Radio Disney interview they say every holiday season they each do something, Aly: Decorates the house, AJ: Cooks.
Aly won a contest in 4th Grade. She had to design a holiday greating card and it was made into a Hallmark card.

I then check my watchlist and find that you added: "At age 10, Aly's greeting card design won the Hallmark Kids Card Contest." This trivia is not Wikipedia-worthy. It's interesting, but even by trivia standards, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I am going to remove it.

We had an edit conflict. I had been working on the trivia at the same time, attempting to find sources and clean up the grammar. Since I had a cite for it and it was mentioned in the trivia on the official website, I figured it might as well stay in. Brainslug 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem with your grammar changing; I do that all the time. I'm not accusing you of adding the trivia about the piano, the Radio Disney interview, and the Hallmark card; all I'm saying is that, when I removed them, you added the Hallmark Kids Card Contest (with a reference). I removed that too. All I'm saying is that you added information not Wikipedia-worthy. However, if it turns out that that information was Wikipedia-worthy, then I'm sorry I removed it. Acalamari 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly when trivia about a musical artist is Wikipedia-worthy; since this particular piece was included as trivia in an official biography, I thought it was worth keeping. In any case, I'm not insisting that it be reinstated, just making it clear what happened. Brainslug 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure what qualifies as trivia either (so I ask other Users about it), but I do know that adding information about cards that they made is certainly not trivia. However, the piano trivia could be re-added, but it should also be lengthened. Adding something about a song they did would count as Wikipedia-worthy trivia. Anyway, at least you weren't vandalizing the Aly & AJ page as others have been doing recently. Keep up the good work. Acalamari 01:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing edit summaries

I reverted the same edit as you to the Delores Park article, but I think the IP may have been trying to make a good faith edit, even if s/he is doing it improperly.

I have to say that I enjoy seeing some of your edit summaries - e.g. "rv... puh-lease" when removing a bogus rumor about someone being gay. At the same time, it's important not to bite newbies as they are a valuable resource for the project. Anyway, keep up the good work fighting the vandals. -Kubigula (ave) 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually very suspicious of this edit, even with the attempt to cite it in the edit summary, since the only reference I can find to the "Weiner Section" folks is on somebody's MySpace page. I also live near the park and have not seen any evidence of it. But you're right, I am probably harsher than I ought to be, and my edit summaries are sometimes not informative. I will endeavor to improve. Brainslug 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm suspicious of any edit with the word "weiner" in it. So, I'd bet that you are right. I also appreciate your taking my comment constructively, as it was intended. -Kubigula (ave) 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now convinced that the edit was vandalism, since the cite they came up with seems to refer either to new information retrieved from an interview conducted with a man who died 45 years ago, or to a book that has no mention of them in the index. It's remarkably cheerful vandalism, though. In any case, I appreciate your feedback. Brainslug 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the one posting the information about "Weiner Section" and I admit I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am trying to give some information that I have a bit of information. "Weiner Section" are indeed mentioned in that interveiw but more importantly the group is one in exsistance today and can be found daily in Dolores Park. They are indeed a huge part of the contemporary culture of Dolores Park and should be mentioned. If you do indeed live near the park, do some personal research on the matter and take a stroll through the side of Dolores Park closest to 18th street. I most commonly spot them on the weekends any time from 6PM-1AM. Sorry if this was an inappropriate place to post this. Lukereiser 03:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, what interview? Where can we read this interview? It is not in my recent printing of the book you mentioned. Second, it doesn't seem like this is, in fact, a huge part of the culture of the park, since I know the park very well and have never heard of it, since there are no references on the web or in the local papers (I checked three of them) to this group. Third, the only references in general I can find are to a group of idiots on MySpace, and while this may be hilarious to them, it's not helpful to the larger Wikipedia effort. I am going to request protection of the article if these edits continue without proper sourcing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainslug (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously you do not have a very broad knowledge of the culture of Dolores Park... The article on Wikipedia is very exiguous and does not mention anything about either Weiner Section nor Big Kid Fun two very important cultural aspects of Dolores Park. If you would like, I could type out the entire interview that I found in my copy of The Barbary Coast, but that you have failed to find. I will try to find another source that makes reference to Weiner Section and perhaps Big Kid Fun (BKF, a similar group). If you are truely trying to help the greater Wikipedia effort please let people include information on contemporary culture espcially when they have exclusive information relating to the topic as well as a published (Notable) paper source. Like I said before, if you truely want to make an effort to disprove do some personal research and come to Dolores Park and ask KIDS if they know a thing or two about Weiner Section or BKF. Thats all I ask, Thank you. P.S. How can you argue with the picture!? Lukereiser 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now satisfied that you are a troll, and I have requested semi-protection of the page. Best of luck in all your future endeavors. Brainslug 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a troll... My only intentions have ever been to spread some interesting and truthful information and all you have tried to do is try and prove it wrong without even the slightest attempt to help a new Wikipedia editor submit a legitimate and notable peice of information. I see no reason why anyone would even have the inclination to fabricate this in the first place. I think that it is simply your believe that the name "Weiner Section" is a strange and possibly silly one so you automatically assumed that the information was not legitmate. I do not believe you live anywhere near the park and have not encountered this group of youngsters, like I said take a look around the park, I am sure you will be able to find them around Friday night. Try by the green container closer to 18th street side or perhaps near the statue in the middle. Lukereiser 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should seek a third opinion on the matter Lukereiser 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you refused to settle this like gentlemen, I will simply have to add the information when my account is four days old in about 40 hours. Lukereiser 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is settled, as far as I'm concerned. The sources you gave were fraudulent, the evidence of gang activity is a photograph of some teenagers in the park, the only references one can find that mention this "Weiner Section" are some pages by a giggly clique on MySpace, and your story about the source of the material has changed significantly. I am sure that there are in fact a bunch of giggly potsmoking teenagers who hang out in the park; I am not sure why this fact would be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. And since you have been dishonest in the past, I am not inclined to continue speaking with you directly.

Go ahead and ask on the Talk page if some more respectable users think this information would be worth adding to the page. If we get involved in some sort of edit war, I am willing to petition for full protection of the page and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainslug (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That is fine post an RfC or I will. What you seem to be doing is making me the enemy and any information I want to post "vandalism" when really we are both interested in Dolores Park but just have different ideas of what should be included in the article. To my knowledge this bit of information meets all Wikipedia's notability requirements Why don't you just let me include this information and perhaps we can work together to add a part to the article debating the legitimacy of this information until you stop being lazy and read the interveiw yourself. I can type up and email you the interveiw, or you can go get the version of the book I have and look at it youself. What you seem to be forgetting (lost somewhere in your personal dislike for myself) is that this information is true and current. Like I said find out for yourself, or email the man who did the interveiw at info@gangsorus.com or call him at 803-345-2600. I acquired all this contact information from Robert Walker's website www.gangsorus.com. Thank you and please be open to reconsider. I am unfamiliar with these MySpace pages, but they seem interesting considering MySpace is the number one social networking tool in the world. If you could, please link them to me. Thank you. And please try and keep this off of a personal level and not resort to name calling... Lukereiser 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with the MySpace ID "lukereiser" is linked to from the "Weiner Section" page. This whole thing is probably hilarious to you; it's less so to me. Please go vandalize something else. Brainslug 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weiner Section is definitely legit. I've read the Barbary Coast book that Lukereiser mentions and the interview is definitely in there. Mmeyers 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really needs to go on the talk page of the article, so I am responding there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Daly

I keep having to reverse the POV at the Chris Daly article. I wrote a note to this guy about what POV means. If you could add a word or two, I'd appreciate it. Griot 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded again. This seems like a fairly obvious candidate for semi-protection. I held off for as long as I did because I was unhappy with the article that we kept returning to; since the user Paulhogarth made an attempt to blend the two, I no longer worry much about it. I will request semi-protection at the next revert iteration. Brainslug 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the rebuke, but I'm pretty sure that at least most of the reverts that I did (you don't specify where the problem was) were attempts to undo vandalism and restore order. Brainslug 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too often one editor' vandalism is another's order. In such cases it's best to ask for page protection (WP:RFP) or other help. -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

I didn't mean to say that you vandalized your own Talk Page. I should have said that clearing message from your own Talk Page could be interpreted as hostility or vandalism. Sorry. Acalamari 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Maxwell

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Sophie Maxwell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Please do not remove the notice without addressing the issues it mentions (it is considered vandalism). Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Warfieldian 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Brainslug! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Sean Elsbernd - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World Football Daily

The article World Football Daily has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG. Couldn't find sources that would satisfy WP:100WORDS let alone WP:THREESOURCES.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]