Talk:Trevor Brown

Source

What is the source of all this text? It reads like it was from a newspaper article. If its original content, then that's fine, but if it was taken from another article or website, then it needs to be reworded to be original. -- Mark 13:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking that the majority is useless information that should probably be deleted. It's a fantastical narrative, or a personal attack. Either way, it's of no use to anyone other than possibly the person that wrote it. I'd hate to see us tolerate this sort of thing if we weren't sure that it was written by the subject themselves. -Chrobb 15:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahh yes. I didn't read the article closely enough to realize it was more of a personal attack. It also may be some attempt to frame Audrie Garrison for it. Who knows. -- Mark 19:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Trevor Brown is a saint. But seriously, he's a managing editor at the IDS. Audrie Garrison is one of the campus editors. We put it up because we feel Trevor works very hard and gets little attention for all his efforts. It's not a joke, and it's not insulting. Trevor rather likes his Bloomingpedia page. I would ask you all to consider leaving it up, at least for a time. We may seem like dumb college kids to you, but the truth is we are overworked, underpaid student journalists who, for no apparent reason, think this Bloomingpedia site is both very funny and well deserved to its subject, Trevor Brown. No one is framing Audrie Garrison, we are all fully aware and in approval of this. Again, I ask you to view this page as the musings of members of the Bloomington community, not a stupid collegiate prank. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- User:Rhs5805

I've posted some questions to User:Rhs5805 on their User talk:Rhs5805 page about this article. Chris Eller 09:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

My objection to this article is that it tends to clutter Bloomingpedia with flippant and otherwise useless information. I'm certainly not averse to a little bit of fun, but if we allow this sort of thing to pass, Bloomingpedia will become more of a social networking site- which isn't its intended purpose. No worries about having fun, but this just may not be the right venue for it. I highly encourage you to edit the article to more relevant information, or at least separate the fun stuff out into a separate section on the page so people can discern between the two. I think we could stand having some of the facts at the top (like, that he's an editor), with a more flippant "useless trivia and fun" section below it. I see no harm in that as long as people can pick the real from the unreal. I would think the folks from the IDS would appreciate our stance on that. -Chrobb 12:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Votes to delete

Ok, I'd like to get the council to vote to delete this article. Please put in bold if you are in favor of deleting this article. We need 3 yes votes.

• YES -- Mark 19:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
• NO, this article has made a great improvement. I'd even say the trivia section could be embiggened. Nice job by the article editors, User:Audrie.garrison and User:Rhs5805. Chris Eller 23:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
• NO changing vote to no until the conversation above resolves itself. I think a good edit would address my concerns. -Chrobb 12:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Much better

I don't mind the way the article looks now. How do others feel? -Chrobb 15:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed, it's very nice now. Chris Eller 00:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)