User talk:Crabapplecove

Hi, Crabapple! I see you've added "cite" tags to both Enzo Ferrari and Smokey Yunick. Smokey's article cites his biography, and Ezno's article cites two books about him. What additional references do you feel are needed? Were there statements you found unverifiable given the referenced books? -- Mikeblas 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt any of the information in the Ferrari article, but it would be nice to see some specific sentences or sections attributed to one source or another, and maybe even with page numbers, especially in the section dealing with Fiat's increasing control over the company, Ford's rejected offer, etc. The Yunick article is filled with NPOV and OR stuff like "He was renowned as a crotchety, crusty, opinionated character", etc. Some anecdotes like his recreating an exact 7/8 scale replica of the production car could use specific sources. Crabapplecove 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Crabapplecove, 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!

Also I would as you to use {{fact}} instead of the blanket {{sources}} tag so editors can see what need references. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallballcruft[edit]

I fail to see how the 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament could be crystalballcruft when all the sites have already been selected. The same could be said for this season's upcoming tournament, but it's very unlikely that that article would face deletion. --DarkAudit 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's a matter of principle anyway, since "real" encyclopedias rarely, if ever, devote entire articles to things that haven't happened yet even if we have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. I know Wikipedia is not paper, but hey, so I'm a deletionist. Crabapplecove 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to make sure you've actually read 2012 Summer Olympics. I don't see how any of that information is "crystalballcruft"; much of it covers the voting process and other past and current developments. --Maxamegalon2000 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I just stated above, since it's that far away in the future, I just don't think Wikipedia should be devoting articles to things that don't exist yet. Crabapplecove 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy[edit]

Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bok, gargoyle[edit]

Out of curiousity, where did you see that there was controversy about this deletion? I'd think this could have easily stayed in proposed deletion, instead of needing to go to the AfD process. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like everyone else on Wikipedia, I learn by observing. I see articles like this nominated for deletion on a daily - even hourly basis. I've also observed that PRODding an article often accomplishes little or nothing. And since it's a fancruft article, I think the "controversy" (such as it is) is implicit because fancruft articles are generally very rabidly supported by fancruft-lovin' editors. Crabapplecove 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology AfDs[edit]

Hello! A friendly suggestion from me to you, one I wouldn't personally know how to accomplish... what if you grouped all those articles under one AfD? It would probably be easier for people to vote and discuss that way. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya...... I figured if I bunched them together, it would be more likely that someone would complain that I'm just out to delete Scientology articles just to make a WP:POINT...(which someone probably will anyway). Maybe for the next batch, I'll try it. Crabapplecove 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your rationale. Good luck out there! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with all the deletions already[edit]

Hey, I'm all for removing cruft, but you just seem to propose deletions for things that you personally don't find significant. Did it occur to you that, perhaps, other people may feel things are significant when you don't? Why don't you spend some of your effort writing content and improving articles rather than hunting down those that need deletion. Worse, you seem to like putting pages up for speedy deletion when the ordinary deletion process would suffice to stifle debate and prevent anyone from coming up with a justification. ChadScott 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Scientology-related deletions[edit]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the deletions you're proposing, may I ask that you do the courtesy of notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology when you make such a nomination? Thanks! -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob O'Connor[edit]

I saw that you recently removed the “current” tag from the Bob O’Connor article. I put it back. This isn't because of the election. I felt the current tag was appropriate because of his recent diagnosis and continuing struggle with cancer. Out here in Pittsburgh, there are updates in the newspaper and on television pretty much everyday. In fact, I just updated the article to reflect recent developments, and will likely need to do so in the near future. However, if you disagree and feel that this isn't a worthwhile use of the “current” tag then, by all means, remove it. Sixtus LXVI 06:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, makes sense to me. Sorry about the late reply, I've been on vacation. Crabapplecove 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daytona 500 broadcasters[edit]

I really, really don't appricate you having that particular article that I started nominated for deletion. You said that we already have a catagory for that called Motorsport announcers. Well let me tell you something, that is too vague of a category to simply skim over the selected few who had the chance to call NASCAR's biggest race. Motorsport announcers can't be narrowed to purely NASCAR since we have the Indy Car series, drag racing, Formula 1, and many many others. And simply listing the announcers by each race is not as easy as it sounds to you because it's a step-by-step process rather than simply being right in front of you. TMC1982 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement?[edit]

Hi... You said "you and I have disagreed in the past" here.....but I don't recall us having ever spoken. Refresh my memory? wikipediatrix 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD nom[edit]

Hi. You previously nominated an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]