User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlyJune2013

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge of New York Statutes

See my merger proposal to merge New York Statutes into Law of New York. Int21h (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion.

Thank you for your suggestion. I have tried my best to simplify my wikipedia entry and make it don't look like cruft and trivia. Thank you Bearian. You helped me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludiresearch (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to the APSE: Association of People Supporting Employment First look fine. But is it online? I tried Google searching it and nothing came up. I appreciate the help. I am new to the world of posting things on Wikipedia. I did notice a typo. In the first paragraph or so where you highlighted the first meaning of the acronym APSE, the letters APSE are out of order. I think it read ASPE instead of APSE. Thanks again. Please respond when you can.Nholz99 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AfDs

To avoid a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, I will simply thank you for your interest. There seem to be few interested in a cleanup of articles on this topic, so those few of us who are frequently find ourselves on our own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious

law
Thank you for quality articles and contributions to articles concerning law, such as Alcohol laws of New Jersey, for articles rescued from deletion, for factual articles on people you know and an informative infobox of yourself, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Nikkimaria

Just to let you know I'm concerned that Nikkimaria is being unfairly targeted here. Isolating editors who have reservations about infoboxes and then attacking them individually is rather distasteful. Please see my view at WP:ANI#Persistent edit stalking [1]. Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but as I noted on Nikkimaria's talk page, it looked bad so she needed to explain herself. That's all. I have "no horse in this race". I gave them both barnstars for trying to work this out. You deserve one, too, for being fairminded. Bearian (talk)
Actually I'm not a boy scout. I don't need badges and stars etc to make my life mean something. I think the whole ANI discussion shows a lack of perspective. If I have time I'll write something more, but like a lot of people I'm finding less Wikipedia less and less creative, more and more just a waste of time.This is not a personal criticism of you in any way, it's a criticism of the admin culture at Wikipedia. --Kleinzach 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a fair criticism, and yet another reason why I try to stay out of such disputes. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

APSE: Association of People Supporting Employment First page

Thanks again for all the help in getting my page up to par. Could you possibly tell me when it might be posted so that people will be able to Google search it. APSE will be having their national conference the last week of June, and we were hoping to have this completed by then. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Nholz99 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC) What do you need in terms of references? I did all of the research for the article, so I can provide the names of the individuals I interviewed and all of my resources. Just let me know. Thanks.Nholz99 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I am sorry, I don't understand why you are being very rude. All I did was offer you any information I had just in case you might need it. Just because you are doing an edit on my information, it does not give you the right to treat someone this way. I don't know what you learned in school, but you can cite personal interviews. There is a format for this in MLA. Per example from MLA: "Personal interviews refer to those interviews that you conduct yourself. List the interview by the name of the interviewee. Include the descriptor Personal interview and the date of the interview." Example below:

Purdue, Pete. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2000

So if you need this information I can give it to you. I still appreciate the help.Nholz99 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC) There is nothing out there about our group. I am the first person to ever collect and write the history of our orginization. So when I started this project I had nothing to work on. Fortunately all the key players within APSE's history were still around. My account of our history is taken from the interviews I did. Everything else, such as the background information on Supported Employment or Customized Employment, was taken from other sources as noted. Nholz99 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked back through the updated version of the APSE Wikipedia page to look at where you marked things that need citation. The first one was after I mention David Mank's paper. You can find a copy of this paper at dps.sagepub.com/content/5/2/1. The next place where you marked for citation was after I wrote "Neither paper was highly received by the industry." You can delete this sentence. It is unnecessary to the topic. The final two places that are needing citation can be answered by the U.S. Department of Labor web page. You asked for citation after I wrote "as stated by the US Dept. of Labor." Their web page is where I pulled that information. Then after the sentence "Under the Employment First approach...", I pulled this from the Department of Labors web page as well. So I hope this helps get all the information you need. ThanksNholz99 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I am doing well. How are you? Bearian (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, not too bad. Having fun writing and improving Wikipedia articles about freedom of speech! — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Office 365

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just thought you'd like to know that this has been a long-term situation, discussed repeatedly on its talk page; often surrounding insisted terminology (such as being required to use the term "subscription-based products that users must regularly pay Microsoft to use" instead of software as a service). It died down, but then he came back in and wholesale reverted much of the cleanup I had done to make the article more encyclopedic, reliant on secondary sources, and considered it all to be vandalism because I removed content without a "non-frivolous explanation" of what I did.

He also accused me of collaborating with Codename Lisa for "nefarious purposes", based only on a post I made telling her about another dispute surrounding him (I only told her because, if you see her talk page, he was also edit warring with Lisa on Microsoft Office 95 too)

This is not the first time Dogmaticeclectic has locked horns recently. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not about terminology. This is about you removing thousands of bytes of content for no good reason! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, that's fair, but I don't know anything about the products, so I can't get involved in the dispute any further. I am just not going to protect it for now. Have you tried WP:AIV or another dispute resolution process? Bearian (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to in the past; I did get a third opinion on what to classify the service as during the previous dispute (but I've since found a better definition in the form of "online office suite and software plus services"). And also, notice how he's replying to EVERY single post I make in defence of myself with more inadequate claims of wrong-doing and assumptions of bad faith. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop talking about definitions. Start talking about your removal of content. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are (or were, at least) a single editor going against the consensus of at least two at the talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll block both of you if you continue to bother me! Please take this issue to a public forum, where somebody can help you to resolve this matter, such as WP:3RR or WP:AN. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright question

How did you determine that the material removed from Handsacre was copied from the other site, as opposed to the other way around? As I noted on the talk page, I couldn't figure it out, and I have an as yet unanswered email to the webmaster of the site to see if they can help us.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't directly do so. I did it from experience, and heuristics. Copyright violations tend to be cut and pasted in bunches by noobies, about popular culture. Plagiarism also tends to mix active and passive voice, inappropriately. Since as an admin and an attorney, I want to avoid lawsuits, I erred on removing the text. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
One more thing: take a look at the sources I took out. They aren't in the references on the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Yet they exist as both inline references and as a bibliography on the bottom of other web page. By using an argument from silence, if the other page has inline references and a bibliography, but the Wikipedia article has neither, therefore the material was cut from the other page and pasted to the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. I thank you in advance for the pretty barnstar or cute kitty image. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
One last note: The text I removed cites the Domesday Book. Note that ancient document is not in the references on the Wikipedia article, but is in the bibliography of the other page. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I support the removal per the precautionary principle. My planned sequence was to give the webmaster a couple of days to respond, as it seemed possible that they copied from us, but if not, I wanted to show that we would remove as soon it was clear we had copied from them. I thought I would leave it so they could see it, although I guess I could have linked to an older version.
I am intrigued by your Argument from silence. However, my first reaction is that it cuts the other way. I may well be missing something, so if you have a moment to check my thought process, that would be great, if not, no big deal. My thinking is that if the CannockChaseHistory(CCH) has an entry in the bibliography, but the Wikipedia article does not, then if the copying is from CCH to Wikipedia, it means the person doing the cutting and pasting has to affirmatively throw away some useful information. In contrast, if someone copied from Wikipedia to CCH, they might decide to add a bibliographic item. It seems more likely that something would be added later, than that something was thrown away when copying, so I see this as hinting (not proving) that the direction was from Wiki to CCH. You obviously reached the opposite conclusion so can you tell me what I am missing?
The Domesday Book comment is even more convincing to me. When the text is in Wikipedia, it is wikilinked, so there is no need to add it to the bibliography. However, if soemone copied it to CCH, that link would no longer work, so they might find the need to add it to the bibliography.
I have mixed feelings about Copyright investigations. On many days, most days, I want something clean so I can make a quick conclusion and move on. However, on occasion, it is fun to do the forensics to figure out what happened. In this instance, I don't think it is worth spending too much time on, but I thought it was intriguing to think about the implications of a match which is close but not exact.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Mullingar

Thank you for applying temporary protection to Mullingar. Unfortunately, the IP-hopping vandal is back with more libel. As this has been going on for several years and the target has complained, please can you consider applying longer term measures? Certes (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, let me see. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll give it another week, but get back to me, if I don't do anything. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for listening, there's no hurry if you're busy, it's usually a month or two between attacks. Certes (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)
Regrets. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kitty

Didn't think anyone had noticed. Thanks.

And I love cats, too (the friendly ones, at any rate). How'd you know? :-) Nightscream (talk)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlyJune2013"