User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuneJulyAug2011

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


not a test

what's wrong with those edits? they removed all the "original research" from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFI2013 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh i just saw you're the one who put in all that info! ("original research") sorry! but still i think u should leave it to neutrals to assess your reasearch/content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFI2013 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Try in another 3 months' time. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for the barnstar It was a most rewarding effort. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive hoarding

The section that I deleted may be well-cited, but it has nothing to do with compulsive hoarding and was added very recently. I have broached the subject of its deletion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLA87 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prop. deletion

(1) One talk page section will suffice; three are rather unnecessary.
(2) If you disagree with the proposed deletion; then go ahead and remove it; that's the way the system works. I am very familiar with relevant policies; statements like "do some basic research" add little value. Let me stress that all of these are judgment calls; I tagged something like 80 articles, and if other editors think that eight of those are worth a full Articles for Deletion discussion, I consider that a good batting average. Again, that's the way the system works.
(3) Re notification: If you read the policy, you'll see that notifying article creators is "ideal"; it is not required. Further, it is explicitly not necessary in "cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia." You will find that the vast majority of the articles tagged during my round of proposed deletions were created by inactive editors (these articles were from two years old or older in most cases). Neutralitytalk 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you have a very good percentage of being correct, but we all miss some things sometimes. Bearian (talk)

The Bronx Company

HI Bearian. Thanks for stopping by my talkpage. I did a quick search and didn't find anything I could add from a reliable resource. I'll look again before the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Candidates are here. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on US Supreme Court case article improvement ?

Hi Bearian, I have greatly admired your contributions in the area of WP:LAW on Wikipedia. :)

  • I recently decided (diff) to shift my focus away from other topics and away from DYK — and focus on quality improvement of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases. Would you care to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive — and perhaps start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I expect to be too busy to do a lot of serious editing until after July 5th. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will keep you posted. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA writer Wehwalt has some ideas, please see User_talk:Wehwalt#Collaboration_on_US_Supreme_Court_case_article_improvement_.3F. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are likely going to collaborate on Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, if you are interested. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and I have decided to work on a different U.S. Supreme Court case, and I've gone ahead and created the article for Time, Inc. v. Hill. Funny how an article on that Supreme Court case hadn't existed yet on Wikipedia. Wehwalt and I would appreciate any help with improving the quality of the article, whether it be writing, research, copyediting, or another area. Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Rescue#Islamic_Center_and_Mosque_of_Grand_Rapids

fyi, as I mentioned you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your kind words! (Sorry to hear you didn't get the notice in time, but I appreciate your support. :-)) Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like barnstars

The Editor's Barnstar
For cleaning up and helping save Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, I award you this Editor's Barnstar! m.o.p 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, great job! Cheers, m.o.p 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :-) Bearian (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock of NelsonDenis248

Dear Bearian,

Thankfully I did not come here to ask a legal question, since I am a lawyer. On December 1, 2008 I edited the article Adam Clayton Powell IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician)&diff=255143973&oldid=253153580

On January 30, 2009 I received an indefinite block from you for my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Nelsondenis248

This seemed a disproportionate response and I did not understand it, until I saw this entry from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive I was not even aware of this Brian Logan/Adam Powell relationship until I saw your post.

I have no interest in returning to the Adam Clayton Powell article, and certainly no interest in embarrassing you. I have communicated with the creator of the Powell page, an administrator named Tony the Marine and told him the same - that I have no interest in returning to the Powell page.

I am writing to respectfully request your unblock of NelsonDenis248. I believe Tony the Marine will support me in this request.

Thank you for your consideration.

216.57.39.35 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed Nelson Antonio Denis, then the answer is, "No," because your only activities on this project appear to have been to violate WP:BLP, WP:SOCK, and WP:COI, in an effort to harass Adam Clayton Powell IV online. Wikipedia does not countenance such crimes, and for that reason, the indef block was reasonable and necessary. I met the former member of the assembly once, but have no other relationship with any one of the five Adam Clayton Powells. A few of the students at my college had interned for him. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your message. I believe that you being the "Blocking" administrator, that it is your call. I'm sure that you both can continue a civil conversation on the topic as you have up until now and come to an understanding. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I again respectfully decline the request, due to Mr. Denis' repeatedly breaking the rules here, as well as his public, off-wiki behavior. His promises are not credible. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up re: NelsonDenis248

  • Bearian yes, I am Nelson Antonio Denis, the State Assemblyman before Adam C. Powell in the 68th Assembly District. When you blocked me in 2009, at the moment you blocked me, I had made a sourced and documented edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician)&diff=255143973&oldid=253153580

You reacted with an indefinite block - and now I understand why. All of my subsequent problems have emanated from that block. No "crime" was committed and, as I stated earlier, I have no intention of returning to the Powell article or causing you any discomfort or embarrassment.

However, if we cannot resolve this block which has caused so many problems, I will be forced to continue asserting this issue. I would really want to avoid that, and move on in a positive and constructive manner. I ask you to consider this respectful request.

As Tony the Marine stated above, I am committed to a civil and constructive discussion, and I believe we can solve this and move forward.

Thanks again for getting back to me, and for your time and consideration.

216.57.39.35 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not press the issue, and don't make veiled threats. Your record, off-wiki and on-wiki, are unflattering, to say the least. I can't trust you, and it is clear from your past actions in public and here at the project that you don't seem to have any scruples. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Arb request

No need for any seafood, but I thought I should let you know that you're not supposed to put "support" or other comments in anyone else's section. If you want, you can make your own section, and say there: "I agree with the statements by x, y, and z." and just leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Panda 3

Please give me a copy of the last revision before Kung Fu Panda 3 article was deleted. 123.24.106.106 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do as you request, but see User:ColderPalace1925/Kung Fu Panda 3 if that helps. The problem is that it's been deleted and re-created 2x, and I don't know if I can do the technical finesse that you may need. Try Wikipedia:Help if it's not what you need. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt

Bearian, I happened to come across your comments about Cirt on DGG's talk page. You were arguing that in writing the election-related biographies and so forth, Cirt merely "promoted ... his personal views" in Wikipedia, and that this was his good right:

"Every editor is free to express an opinion by means of creating or editing articles of interest to him or her."

I am surprised to see such an experienced admin as yourself making that argument, especially since admins enjoy an in-built advantage in dispute resolution. Wikipedia is NOT intended as a platform for exercising freedom of speech, and promoting personal views. If Wikipedia comes to reflect the personal opinions of its administrators, rather than the pool of available sources, that is a corruption rather than realisation of its stated mission.

That Cirt, among other things, wrote a promotional article about an adult entertainment company that a free-speech lawyer has a significant business interest in, at the personal suggestion of that lawyer, adds an extra twist here. I am sure most Wikipedians support freedom of speech, but not in that way. Regards. --JN466 12:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the "adult entertainment company that a free-speech lawyer has a significant business interest in" - but if you send me a diff or post it here, I would appreciate it. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first point in the RfC/U, here (Corbin Fisher). This was the article version concerned. The free-speech lawyer is Marc Randazza, who is the company's general counsel. --JN466 01:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Fedkiw

I am trying to sit back and watch the article stabilize. However, can you comment at Talk:Ronald_Fedkiw#Image_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on the WP:DUCK statement because I am apparently not the only one who does not understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just that it looks obvious to the subject, Ronald Fedkiw, that someone was trying to make trouble for him by making it appear that he's claiming credit for other peoples' work. That's the gist of what his email was to me. It's not so obvious to me, but according to my students, I'm clueless. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...

In January of this year you closed Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism.

In April and May, as journalists reviewed the formerly secret detainee assessment briefs that had just been published by wikileaks there was a new spurt of coverage of this topic. So, I gave some thought about either creating a brand new article, based on the new references, or work to get the deletion reversed, and adding the new references to the restored article.

When I took at look at deleted page, to see which administrator deleted it, to ask them some questions about when they would consider undeletion, I noticed something very confusing.

The closing statement you put on the {{afd}} was delete -- by a growing consensus -- as violating WP:ALLEGED and WP:FORK. No opinion on the merits of the allegations However, the entry you put in the deletion log was completely different ‎(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism)

In my experience the entry in the deletion log and the closing statement are often identical. In my experience, when they are not identical, the deletion log entry is a good faith summary of the closing statement on the {{afd}}.

However, in this case, not only are the two explanations distinct, I am disturbed because the explanation in the deletion log, which I became aware of, for the first time today, is one that strongly implies bad faith on the part of the article contributors.

Before we go any further, could you please explain why there is this discrepancy between the two explanations? Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to delete articles, and only do so when obligated. The admin system in the deletion process allows for a drop-down box with a few possible rationales for delation, but not a lot of space for explanation, so I am contrained to make short-cuts in my explanation and often thus it comes out harsh. Whether my opinion agrees with the sentiment of the consensus is besides the point. In this case, my politeness in the afd was meant to mitigate whatever harshness appears in the deletion log. Miss Manners says to keep angry statements out of public earshot, but euphemisms are always acceptable in public. If you want to re-create a substantially different article, you may. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The gnome peeks out from underneath the mushroom and says, "Thank you for the barnstar". Bgwhite (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia energy law

Hi, you created the above article in 2009 and so far have been the only editor to make any substantive edits to it. I recently created Legal system of Saudi Arabia and have proposed to merge Saudi Arabia energy law into it. Any comments on this proposal can be posted here. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps clearing the way for a page move

I think you could help out Talk:Usual and Customary Rates. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if you visited...

...this discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuneJulyAug2011"