User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2008

Keeping Law of Palestine NPOV

In a review of recent changes I notice that a portion of my edits from yesterday has been reverted as a "POV essay." I am not an expert in the field and consequently I am very happy to defer to those who dispute my edits. The WP:AGF-violative edit summary, however, reminds me strongly of the kinds of edit summaries often found in the more contentious I-P articles and without casting judgement one way or the other, I notice that this particular edit comes from an editor who has been active on these articles. I worry that non-NPOVs may creep in at this early stage in the development of the article and become difficult to remove thereafter. I can think of two solutions each of which has positive and negative aspects to it.

• The first solution would be to request that all "involved" editors resist the urge to contribute until the underconstruction tag is removed. The probelem I see with this is that "involved" editors are often the most knowledgeable about the issue and often care enough about the issue to see articles through to the point of losing their stub status. Thus their edits may be invaluable, and barring them from the article in any way would likely result in slower progress.
• The better solution in my estimation is to alert all "involved" parties that an article is being created which, without their monitoring, could potentially descend into forking. This solution would involve adding notes at both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine as well as other potentially "involved" wikiprojects. The problem here is that this could simply descend into a free for all of POV vs POV.
  

Do either of these "solutions" sound good to you or do you think I'm just being paranoid? Currently I will admit that there is no problem at all. The edit by an "involved" editor I mentioned earlier was nothing more than a deletion of information I had added and I believe it was a fair edit. Should we perhaps wait until this becomes an actual problem before taking action. Any thoughts on the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I didn't state myself properly here. I was referring to this edit by User:6SJ7. I am not opposed to his removal of material since I agree that it did lack reliable sources, but subsequent to his edit I took the liberty of examining his editing history due to the fact that I didn't and don't believe the material (non-RS as it was) violated WP:NPOV. I see that he's been very involved with Israel-Palestine conflict articles and I became worried that if editors who have chosen sides on similar contentious articles became involved with this article from its inception that biases might become deeply ingrained and difficult to remove. I certainly don't think you have a non-NPOV here considering you put up the POV tags to begin with, it had just never occurred to me that non-neutral editors might begin editing the page before it was out from "under construction" status. Perhaps I should just calm my fears until problems actually do arise. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up that I wasn't talking about your edits above. I have perfect faith in your neutrality so far. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I should note that I'm not even saying 6SJ7 is non-neutral but simply that he is "involved" and that when I noticed this I became worried that others who might be non-neutral could potentially make one-sided edits without due opposition. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thank you and I replied to your latest message here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar for a good person

Many thanks for your thoughtfulness! Have a wonderful day! Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay/ANI

Thanks for the note - that was my exact plan. I have had similar complaints many times in the past, especially when I was working on articles stubbed under WP:OFFICE actions and getting private requests to review specific bios. Please note that almost all of my contributions on the LeVay article have been on the talk page, with maybe a dozen article edits total in the last year. Skoojal has made a couple hundred edits there and is very resistant to anyone suggesting revisions. James Cantor is new and is used to arguing in that uncivil sniping style popular among academics. Both are potentially good editors, though. I will write some other new biographies and articles while things cool off a bit. For the record, I don't feel either of them should be banned, though it would be nice if some other people work with them on learning how we reach consensus here. As always, I appreciate your work here! Jokestress (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there that if you want to deal with this I will back you. I tried to deal with it earlier, and it erupted again. We need a replacement for NYBrad, and you are my nominee. DGG (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I have done all I can to encourage other editors to become involved in editing the article on Simon LeVay, especially editors (like James Cantor) who know more about sex research than me. The only person whose suggestions I have been resistant to is Jokestress, who seems to be motivated by hostility to LeVay and who did an appallingly bad job of editing that article, as anyone with even a basic knowledge of sexual orientation research would know. Skoojal (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After I read through all the links, pages, off wiki essay and so on,. I posted a response. Your response was "I'm going to assume that Joketress is doing the right thing. Can we take a breather and look into this before a topic ban?" As the only person not previously involved, this was dismissive and insulting, and gives the impression you saw a name you 'like', and ignored most of the commentary to put in a shield over her. ThuranX (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review that AN/I thread again. Skoojal is now asserting that I'm now an 'involved editor' and shouldn't be involved on the AN/I thread. Clearly, your warning about how he comports himself in this matter failed. I'm asking for a civility block for his gaming the 'i'm so offended' vibe until he comes to terms with the fact that if he asks for help, and doesn't like the help he gets, that's his fault. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you can consider this issue over. I didn't care for the tone of your comments, and I can see that you didn't care for the tone of mine, but so what? People annoy each other all the time, and it generally does neither side any permanent harm. I have about as much right to call for a civility block for you as you have for me, eg (in my opinion) none. Skoojal (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin

I'll think about it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

New essay

Hey Bearian, long time no hear. I just wrote a really long new essay that you may find interesting: not all business articles are spam. I'm going to post it at the village pump for policy, meanwhile, have a look and tell me what you think. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Lublin

I don't see even vague notability, but in any event happy to {{prod2}}. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Competition law

I didn't delete that picture. I moved it to this section. My opinion is that that caricature is too negative and US-centric to be in the introduction of article that deals with international topic. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! -- Vision Thing -- 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the comment on the talk page. Wikidea 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

appreciation

Of all the good things ever said to me at Wikipedia, it is yours' just now that I value the most. DGG (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

That was so nice of you to give me a barnstar for a disambiguation edit, normally one of the more thankless jobs on WP. It was a great boost. Thank you. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute then why did she swear at me?

Did you perchance look at the comment she men when editing my comment off of her talk page. I simply tried to talk sense to her and she said to me and I quote "fuck you". Does that sound like someone who is acting in good faith and rationality in a totally dispassionate way? A COI need not be limited to a commercial interest. I mean heck...if the Pope were editing an article on the Catholic Church you could surely say he would have a vested interest in it's content. Puella has by her statements revealed that she has an equally strong personal interest that will not be swayed by evidence. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I wish I did not have to come to that level. She is a fine editor and I hope this does not lead her to leave WP forever or something. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting analogy... by definition of the Catholic Church, the Pope is infallible on matters of spirituality. So, if the Pope were editing the article on the Catholic Church, wouldn't his statements have full authority and accuracy as long as it's about matters of faith? I mean, really, the Pope could just issue a proclamation in order to justify any edit he made. I think that such a "conflict of interest" is a totally bogus idea. I don't claim that I'm an authoritative source on the same level to MSM as the Pope is to the Catholic Church... however, I do find that attempting to make such an analogy fails miserably at the purpose intended. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New York

With regard to your comment,

The overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia (WP) and usage outside of WP have "New York" to mean both "New York State" and "NY". Please avoid disambiguating pages to the other ways, or admiistrative actions will have to be taken. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Other users have already made this perfectly clear. My changes were reverted and I have not made any attempts to edit thusly since. Your comment is superfluous and I perceive it to be harassing. Please avoid threatening me or other users or administrative actions will have to be taken. --JBC3 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barney the Barnstar

Mwah! Thank you :-) You're a sweetheart, Bearian. Are you coming over to Munich for Oktoberfest? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Aww :-( You disappoint me. Come next year though. We'll get some dirndls :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, Bearian - I placed an {{unblock}} template on DNA Dick (talk · contribs), because I couldn't figure out your rationale for a block. If it was simply because of "Dick", keep in mind that is a common name (cf Dick Cheney} and also a slang term for a private detective. Kelly ^hi! 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

I am responding to your comment on my talk page the article talk page as I see you have made essentially the same comment there. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to this, I have voiced my opinion in talk that such a move is neither necessary nor warranted. I have requested at talk that 6SJ7 self-revert and use WP:RM to gain consensus prior to making this unilateral decision. Unfortunately I am currently extremely busy in life outside of wiki so if I could ask yet another favor of you: Could you please place an oppose vote in my stead at WP:RM once 6SJ7 has initiated the request? You can reference my reasons at the article talk page and you can reference my request for your help here. Thanks so much. I think the article is really turning out well and I am truly appreciative of your good efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, the changes you have made to the article today only underline the importance of the questions that I have asked on the article's talk page. Starting with: For purposes of this article, where exactly is Palestine? The article Palestine describes how the term has been used to mean different areas (and I think that article really does not cover the subject adequately anyway.) The first sentence of this article as you have written it, refers to "the area of Palestine controlled by the Palestinian National Authority." I think that supports the current title, but again, it raises the question, what do you mean by Palestine? You can respond on the article's talk page, as I have already asked the question there. There are other issues with the article, but I think the question of what the article is going to be about (without creating other problems, such as possibly being a POV fork) should be resolved fairly quickly. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Hi, Bearian! I'm trying to get some editors together to discuss the LGBT People and LGBT Culture categorization schemes. If you have some time, would you stop byWT:LGBT/CAT? Even if you don't have time, would you let me know of anyone you think might be interested in helping out? Many thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hi, could you tell me how these edits break NPOV? I'm having some trouble with some rightists on the GWB article. Thanks.

"After reelection, Bush signed into law a Medicare drug benefit program that caused the greatest expansion in America's welfare state in forty years, with a price tag approaching $7 trillion."

"However, with his administration's increases in domestic and foreign spending, Bush took the $155 billion surplus from his predecessor and assembled the largest deficit in United States history."RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputes on LeVay article and INAH3

Bearian, I am extremely sorry to bother you with this, but I've become involved in a dispute with another editor on the Simon LeVay and INAH3 articles that is turning increasingly nasty. Since you've recently dealt with problems on the LeVay article, any comments you could make would be welcome (and so, possibly, would be protecting the articles against editing). Skoojal (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Username Jimbo online

I wanted to bring your attention back to User talk:Jimbo online#Your username. I am not comfortable with this username. I am assuming that most people do not maintain watchlisted user talk pages as a matter of routine, which is why I am posting here. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Bearian, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for highlighting my work "rescuing" articles. Your words were very kind. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2008, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Copyright violation in Poughkeepsie Day School

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Poughkeepsie Day School, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Poughkeepsie Day School is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Poughkeepsie Day School, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reqest text of deleted article

Hello,

I would like to request the text of my first article that was deleted yesterday, less than a day after I wrote it. The article was entitled "Avakit", and I really need a copy of it please.

If you can let me know what I can do to improve it that would be great, or even please tell me if it simply not Wikipedia material (Either way, I really need a copy of the text please, I didn't back it up anywhere when I typed it).

Any input you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Avazed (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitol

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Jasynnash2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Excessive bail

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Excessive bail, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061213180110AAW8ygV. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm done. Common misconception, he was not charged with a crime in 1993, the media forget to remind us of that obviously. Enjoy. — Realist² 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian law

• Quick msg (you can delete). Hi, given your work on it, I waited to see you comment on Talk:Palestinian law. Are you also ok w/ what I said about removing the "lawlessness" stuff? Thanks. Be well, HG | Talk 20:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) PS If you don't mind, can you reply there? HG | Talk

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Black

Please consider my GA nomination of Hugo Black. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Talk:1906 (film)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:1906 (film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —scarecroe (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two questions for you

1. User Special:Contributions/K8lj has been adding links to U.S. Supreme Court cases from some site/database called "enfacto.com". Since we usually use either Findlaw or Justia, I'm not sure if I should change the links and warn this user, or just to leave it alone. What, if anything, should I/we do?

2. I have undertaken a project for WP:SCOTUS to sort the cases on this list onto their respective Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. This is a big job, and a several other users have been working on it with me for nearly six weeks. Any amount of help we can get is would be much appreciated. If you are interested in helping me, or if you have any questions, let me know.

Thanks, --Eastlaw (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are starting a new term? Are you back in school? If so, what are you studying? --Eastlaw (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See this conversation; K8lj might benefit from either of yours coaching. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Corporate Suites

Hi. I have included the changes you have suggested. Thank you. Is there anything else I can do?(Gutsalo (talk) 11:26, 08 September 2008 (UTC))

See User:Gutsalo/Corporate Suites. I can't do anything yet. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Law Assessment dispute

Hello Bearian. I see your name a lot on the WP Law articles and that you're an admin. I thought you might help set some parameters for a dispute. WP Law's assessment department had been defunct for several months and I recently cleaned it up and brought it back online. After doing so he started undoing my edits on several pages. He did so on the basis that WP Law has not adopted the C class. It should be noted that he is not a participant in WP Law and that he removed the links to the WP Law assessment department. He made some changes to the assessment department and they were mostly a cut and paste job from other wikiproject assessment departments to which he belonged. Right now I think he has trying to catch me in a three revert rule: I assessed something, he changes it, I revert, he reverts, I revert again . . . Any help in discussing parameters with him would be helpful or three-revert rule if in fact the first time he changed it counts as a revert. Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is misrepresenting what's really happening here and merely wikilawyering that you are not a participant of the project unless your name is listed which is bollocks. His assessment was overriden for two reasons - (a) it was quite often poor in terms of following the quality scale that's been used (and even in the application of the importance scale), and (b) we have not adopted C-class, and the editorial team does not have the authority to impose their changes on the WikiProject. Seeing he wanted to use C-class, I opened the discussion on adopting it at the WikiProject talk page and informed him, while moving back those poorly assessed articles to more suitable grades. Since then, he's been revert-warring and being a complete nuisance, making only a handful of productive contributions in terms of trying to reactivate the assessment dept. But he's been making significant and clearly controversial changes, and continues to do so as if he has the authority. If he has no interest in making any productive contributions outside of assessment area, and keeps edit-warring over it, then that speaks for itself. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - he was reverted but does not seek consensus or discuss so please show him to that page so he does not continue. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Please ban user Wallamoose from editing the Clarence Thomas article; he keeps trying to remove NYT-cited info of Thomas's sexual misconduct. You should also sockpuppet check him, as he's a new account.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, I received your message, but I must ask that you provide an example where I posted false information or removed accurate information. In fact, user RafaelRGarcia has stated in the Discussion section of the Clarence Thomas article that Clarence Thomas is a "Perv". He deleted some of my talk comments. He has attempted through several editors to get me banned. And he has knowingly attempted to maintain false information on the Clarence Thomas page. I have tried to follow the rules of Wikipedia using the dicsussion page and RafaelRGarcia's talk page to communicate and explain why corrections to the Clarence Thomas Page are needed. Here is one example: The article states, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm Paragraph three talks about Rose Jourdain never testifying.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html Is an official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record.

As you can see, I have been diligent in providing verifiable and well sourced proof for my case. This has been met with harassment and attempts to have me banned. I hope you can look into this situation and prevent RafaelRGarcia from continuing his abusive behavior. Thank you. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Hi. Wallamoose is trying to block the Good Article Nomination for William Rehnquist until he gets his way on Clarence Thomas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1 . He's signed up to be the reviewer for Rehnquist, even though he's a brand new account. Is this right? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no POV issue when a statement is clearly attributed. You can't just POV-tag everything you disagree with or that damages someone you like. You also confused the two reporters Greenhouse and Greenburg, and yes, I did remove from the Rehnquist article your two paragraphs smearing the reporter. Bearian, I'm sorry for the trouble with this guy. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Wallamoose is removing his comments. See:

- I made some good faith edits and tagged some parts of the Rehnquist article that I thought had POV issues. RafaelRGarcia simply undoes whatever I post. He just undoes whatever I do without explanation (see edit history). I don't think I've taken out anything of his. I've gone ahead and requested mediation. I don't know if you are an administrator or what. But I didn't want you to think I was going around your back. All I ask is that edits made to my contributions are done in good faith. I used the talk page to explain my edits and I think they are quite reasonable. I don't know really where to go from here, but I think I have as much right to edit articles as RafaelRGarcia, and I don't think it's his place to excercise ownership. In fact if you'll review the RfC and comments on the Clarence Thomas board you'll see that numerous editors have weighed in, but they've all been ignored and he just wants to continue adding one sided-content. I don't think this is right, but I'm certainly willing to consider any advice or suggestions you offer. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

The finer points of pederasty

Your edit at Ashley MacIsaac is incorrect. A sexual relationship between an adult and a sixteen year old boy is the very essence of what pederastic relationships are about (though Ashley's doings with the boy may not be so mainstream). The fact that the boy was above the age of consent is irrelevant. Pederastic relationships can be legal or not, but they are still pederastic. Please revert yourself. Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough info to make a determination at at the Youngblood article. Haiduc (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

MacIsaac

If a source is found that's fine -- the problem with that statement was compounded by the positioning, which made it appear that the cited source supported it (when it didn't). Nandesuka (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the *. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well, happy editing! Prodego ^talk 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oremus

Hey, can you clarify your reasons for adding the oremus link on Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America)? It seemed like a good addition, but another editor believes it is spam. Tb (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Attack bio

I am not trying to make personal attacks, I just wrote a new article. Honeygirl111 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Bearian. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Priya Bathija

thanks for your note. I'm really frustrated by trying to determine notability with Indian subjects. The further from sleepy li'l ol' Largo a subject is, the harder it is. I once ran into some real trouble when I nominated a Russian pol article for deletion. If sources are in Cyrillic or Hindi, I'm lost. Then you have people contributing who speak a different dialect of English. A lot can get lost. BTW, the blog referenced the character she plays rather than the subject. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Award

I know this comes a little late, but life has been hectic for me recently. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I really appreciated the level of neutrality I feel you brought to rough waters of Law of Palestine. I therefore, hereby award you this Ribbon of Merit for conflict resolution. (See The Anti-Flame Barnstar) -Thibbs (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Derrick Hoskins

Derrick Hoskins is notable per WP:ATHLETE. The NFL, being the highest level of American football in the world, fulfills the requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Patken4 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox on the right side of the page has a link to his databasefootball.com profile. That profile said he played in 61 games in his career. I think it only takes into account games the player actually played a down, not just dressed for the game but never left the sidelines. He does have a few interceptions and fumble recoveries, so he would have gotten onto the field on those occasions. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For help

Hello! The administor VS asked me to note to other Admins. It happened that I found you and I invite you help to solve the dispute/problem about the article Gaogouli County if you are interested and have time. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=240660700. Thanks! -Dicting (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -Dicting (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Conference of Drama Schools

Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any way to tone this down, and to add references to prove this consortium is notable? Bearian (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The consortium is certainly notable, - I was actually surprised that there wasn't an article already on it. I was intending to flesh the article out with the appropriate tone of voice and to cite relevant sources in due course (Cross-Referenced). Entangle (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

UBX

cool. 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) GlassCobra 22:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

I need your help, I would like to improve article that you commented, but I have many questions, first I would like to delete it. And then to prepare other. I have many arguments to verify notability of biography that I'm writing, if you would like we can discuss. ~~Wikiuser9~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser9 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, other question

Thanks for your support, now it just solved. Wikiuser9 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

9-29

Hi, sorry for getting back to you so much later. The reason I took that statement out is that it violated wp:CRYSTAL, which basically says we should never make statements which are predicting the future (dow closed at blah-blah; when in fact dow hasn't closed yet... you never know if a miracle will cause it to shoot back up). What we can do, very carefully, is give the predictions of others, though it's important to be mindful of wp:UNDUE (don't give undue weight to sources which don't deserve them), wp:NOTABILITY (make sure the source is notable), and of course wp:NPOV (make sure the source and edit are both neutral). NJGW (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Recall

[1] :) - that doesn't mean you actually get to use the process. Obviously it's only there for show :). In seriousness, no problems. If I start going loopy that list is filled with people I can trust to slap me about and, in the last resort, stop it by asking me to remove the flag. I hope it never comes to that! Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)