User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMar2010

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA 2

Hi, I just wanted to see if you would still be willing to nominate me for RfA? No pressure if you don't think it would be a good idea to nominate me. CTJF83 chat 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can wait...let me know when BLP stuff is done. CTJF83 chat 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian

LOL. No, that's okay. The only one to blame for this is Asgardian. But it is good to hear from you, my friend. I miss attending the New York Meetups as I used to. I'm hoping to resume doing so in the future, if I can find work. Are you on the ArbCom, though? I didn't know that you were. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're into that too? :-)
Seriously, though, why'd you apologize for the Asgardian thing, then? Nightscream (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. How'd you find out about it, though? Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:The Pythons

Email addresses for 14 year olds shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Woogee (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a prob. I've asked on AN whether the email addresses should be oversighted.

re your rec to delete or userfy my article on Social Science Research on Greatness

hello Bearian


I'm writing in response to your recommendation to delete (or userfy) my my wiki article re Social Science Research on Greatness because it appears to be Original Research

I’m brand new to Wiki so have no doubt made some errors in writing this article. I’m more than willing to rewrite it, but as you’ll see am not quite sure what needs correcting.


the article is not and is not intended to be Original Research or college paper and anything like that.

I’ll spell out what I did and maybe you can give me a few tips re correcting it.


I wrote the article after looking up the topic of ‘greatness’ on wiki. Which sent me to this url:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness

from there I followed an internal link to this Url re ‘great man theory’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

as neither of them had a single word about the massive social science research literature on the topic of greatness, I decided to summarize the main works which have been done and did so with a great deal of detail. all of which – I think - is referenced in the article .

eg

“Francis Galton’s book is the "first systematic systematic examination of distinguished people" (Simonton, 1994, p10)” 

  (simonton 1994 is in ref list at end of article)

I did not do any Original Research is writing this piece. I just happen to know a great deal about the soc sci research on the topic of greatness .. eg I’ve read every book summarized in the article except Galton’s 1869 book which is discussed in Simonton (1994) book on Greatness. And I simply used material from these sources in writing the article.


I realize now that my style of referencing is not the one used in wiki., eg I did not use any footnotes/citations, but simply gave the page number(s) and ref in the text for each of my sources. I can of course change this style to suit wiki.


For example my opening paragraph in the current article I now understand could easily be seen as an opening to a college paper:

Social Science Research on Greatness For past century and more, but especially since the accelerated development of intelligence tests in the early 1900s, there has been a vast amount of social scientific research published relative to the question of ‘greatness’. Much of this research doesn’t actually use the term ‘great’ in describing itself, preferring terms such as ‘eminence’, ‘genius’, ‘exceptional achievement’, etc. The major intellectual battles over this topic - not surprisingly, given the ideological and socio-political implications of the outcome – have focused around the questions of ‘nature vs nurture’ or ‘person vs context’. Over the decades a number of books have been published which either integrate the existing research or report major new findings, or both. The ongoing tension between ‘nature vs nurture’ or ‘person vs context’ appears in all of them. The books summarized here are notable contributions to the development of social science literature on the topic of 'greatness'. They are described below in chronological order.


In fact, every point made in that paragraph is straight from the existing research literature and could be documented with citations. Would it be helpful if I added these citations?


In truth I’m not sure how to proceed from here. What I’m attempting to do is provide a short summary of a vast amount of social scientific research which has been done relevant to the topic of greatness, and which is not available elsewhere in wiki. I am not trying to put any Original Research in the article.


I would be more than happy to shorten the article to a much more ‘summary’ form if that is appropriate. Likewise re changing my referencing to match the wiki footnote/citation style. But I can’t think of what else to do as the article is not Original Reserch. It is simply a review of what already exists in the soc sci research literature re the topic of greatness.

Again, if you have any suggestions re how I can edit the article to deal with your concerns re it being Original Research, I would really appreciate hearing them.

Writing the article took a great deal of time and effort, and it seems a waste not to get it into useable form for wiki.

Sincerely

AgRince (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


state of play with article re Social Sci Research on Greatness

hello Bearian

thanks for getting back. Another editor moved my article back into my user space, so i can work on it further. I'm trying to follow that editor's suggestion that i "take a look at the tone, construction and flow of articles on similar topics to see how they are written and structure (my) article similarly." Hopefully i'll be able to do this.

AgRince (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Online business directories and Crime Stoppers

Hi Bearian, if you wouldn't mind, please review User talk:Maleficant#Lethbridge and Medicine Hat external links and provide your perspective. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

INTERPHIL

I don't mind you removing the Prod but you have added little to support notability. What was unusual, special, different about it? What great rarity was shown or new thing done? That was why I Proded it in the first place, because the entry is banal. We could have an entry on 100s of similar exhibitions that just said when they were and that stamps were issued. Will you be adding further information? Thanks, Maidonian (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Islands?

That's not quite what it says.... "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps". I'm not sure these qualify as major, or what maps you'd find them on. This company: [1] seems to own a bunch of uninhabited islands, which they have developed for tourism. There are around 18,000 islands in Indonesia, most of them are not notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

House Keeping and Routine?

Hello Berian

Recently my page BunkCampers was deleted and moved to Bunk Campers. The new page has less than half of the original text that I inputted previously and I am confused to why this is. Can you please explain and let me know if my information can be re-posted?

Thanks

BunkCampers (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Claire 11.03.2010

Common Sense for Connecticut

Dear Sir,

The phrase "Common Sense for Connecticut" for which I had created a page, was not an advertisement for anyone. It was a factual entry about the 5th district GOP campaigns in CT and how one candidates slogan had been co-opted by the rest of the Republican Party in CT, and claimed as their own without giving the credit to the originator of the same phrase. The content itself can be verified by anyone who was at the announcement by William Evans Jr. in November, which I believe was more than a month before the Couto campaign began using it for their own. I can email you pictures, and the email addressed of several people who were there, plus people who where involved in the planning stages of Mr. Evans' campaign for office. Can you please tell me why this entry was flagged and removed, and who it was flagged by? Chances are, you will find that the person/people who flagged this, are trying to co-opt this phrase as their own. Thank you for your time. Alotto (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creature Unknown

The film itself lacks even bad reviews in RS, even though it has both in genre sources. Since the film is not (yet) mentioned there, how about a sourced sentence in the Masterson article saying something like "One of Masterson's rare film appearances was in the 2004 horror film Creature Unknown." Interested readers could then follow the cite off-project to NYT or RT if they wanted more information. And perhaps her filmography might be included there as well. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

re Jose Peralta

It's great fun working with you on this! LOL. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This was the state of the article, before I improved it. -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Six months?

What brought on a six-month block?

Unless I'm missing something that was oversighted, the IP made a total of one edit between being unblocked and being reblocked by you. The edit consisted of a series of goofy allegations about Obama, which the IP politely and clearly presented in the talk page of an article about goofy allegations about Obama. I don't see that he did anything that merited censuring, let alone a block, let alone a six month block with a prohibition of appeal on his own talk page. Moreover, the edit was pretty much what he promised to do as part of a statement that led jpgordon to say "You seem to get the point exactly right" and to unblock him.

Please reconsider this block.

I'm about to alert jpgordon to this. (Please don't reply on my own talk page, as I'm about to go to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please justify this block; this user has no oversighted or deleted contributions; is there some subtlety we're missing? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked per requests in writing from the two other admins noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I unblocked despite my own opinion, and only because of written requests. After unblocking, the IP adress made a very long comment with wacko citations filled with WP:BLP violations. But I can deal with it. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the IP did indeed make a very long comment with wacko citations filled with what might be interpreted as WP:BLP violations. Which is pretty much what he had told jpgordon that he'd do, and which jpgordon had welcomed. Had it been the other way around -- had jpgordon blocked (NB for 3RR, not BLP violations) and I had seen the same appeal, I'd have unblocked pretty much as jpgordon did, perhaps with a suggestion of taking it slow on the talk page, perhaps not.
In stark contrast to, say, Elián González (either then or now), Barack Obama is a big boy who's as public a figure as there could be; he and his many supporters are well accustomed to nutty allegations and innuendo from birthers, teabaggers, "Fox News" and other wingnuts. A little more of this garbage on the talk page for an article specifically about such garbage might well be grounds for a warning or a deletion. Persistence in posting it, perhaps a series of lengthening blocks. But a six-month block for a first offense (if it was even an offense)? No way.
Further, you prevented the IP from editing his own talk page. The policy page is very clear about this: editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. The history of his talk page shows no abuse whatever. Nothing. Zilch.
I went to bed in the expectation that I'd wake to see either evidence of serious wrongdoing that I'd been too sleepy to notice, or an unblocking with an amicable and apologetic message to the blockee. I wake to see neither. I suggest that you write a more amicable message to the blockee, and more importantly that you think hard before you block anybody else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather alarming allegations

Bearian, can you please take a look at User:Ash's comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination)? They are alleging that I am involved in an off-wiki conspiracy with un-named Wikipedia admins and attempting to associate me with Wikipedia Review although I have repeatedly asked them not to. Since you are a member of the LGBT Wikiproject, I hope that Ash will respond to your involvement with less rancour than usual. Thanks.. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bearian, thanks for your earlier comment. I now have direct threats of action by Spartaz, could you please check over what has been written on my user talk page. It is rather threatening but I was taken aback to find out that Spartaz happens to be a WikipediaReview member too, but failed to make that point clear (unless I missed it in the dialogue somewhere). Cheers, Ash (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you may have misunderstood part of DC's comment above. S/he does not actually state they are not involved in Wikipedia Review, only that they are not involved in a conspiracy. In fact I have made no allegation that DC is involved in a conspiracy, however DC is a member of Wikipedia Review, a simple Google search using "site:wikipediareview.com carbuncle" will show some posts made there. Cheers, Ash (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bearian. Dc is now plotting some revenge without following any proper dispute resolution channels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delicious_carbuncle/RFC Jeeeeeze. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I noticed that you provide copies of deleted articles. I wanted to ask if you could provide me with a user copy of the deleted history of Ropeadope? Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't suppose I can help in any way, but I'd like to be able to see the full history of it if possible. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I meant the full history - as in the deleted revisions. Chubbles (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it from DRV but I keep forgetting about REFUND and probably should have gone there instead. Chubbles (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agape

Hi. I'm usually a fairly strong inclusionist/eventualist. I ran across the Agape article from a tangent, and after looking at all the links that were in its EL section, none of them actually had any mention of the AWF. Hence, I suggest you reexamine your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agape World Fellowship. That's all. (no reply needed, but reply here if wanted. I watchlist :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Booth

Please remove your deletion reccomendation for Rachel Booth. Please Google her as Rachel Evjen, maiden name. Also, look at the most recent Stanford Invitational race, US Cross Country team trials, and USATF National CC Championships in Spokane. She currently holds the top 10 national outdoor 10k time. Please do not be subjective comaparing a male runner with a female runner, additionally notice the redirect from Rachel Evjen and Rachel Evjen Booth. If you Google both of these names you will find her quite note worthy. The 5K race that you reference is fine, but 5k is not her distance. She runs 10k and greater.

[2] [3]


Boothjj123

Borked

Greetings Bearian!! Just curious, do you think that the close no-consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah York is worth pursuing a deletion review? Consensus seemed mildly clear, but I don't know - looking forward to your thoughts! Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's why I asked - whether or not deletion review would even change the closure, I don't know, but it's probably not worth all that time. Thanks for getting back to me, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive?

Your comment(s) at Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive? are welcome. Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jordan--digby

why would i attack myself? i am a proffesional under 15 rugby player, a student of the year, and i am notable in my school for selling bottles of lucozade, why would i attack myself. Ducks and Fish have wikipedia pages , yet you choose to block mine, u guys must be saddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan--digby (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesMar2010"