User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMay2011

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks - User:AnnekeBart - (The mathematician - historian)

  • " Having to deal with these idiots is really trying " [1]
  • " I am loosing my patience and have a hard time staying civil when confronted with such people. " [2]
  • " Please find an actual reliable source, not this encyclopedia nonsense. " [3]

[ Sources: ( Grove Art, Oxford University Press.; The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists.; Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. ) ] --Davide41 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton

Do you think you could rewrite your closure in plain English. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, but WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV mean nothing to me, and I've been here for 5 years. What hope has a newbie got.--Scott Mac 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done per your request. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for stepping up to close this one. But why did you add a generic {{refimprove}} tag to the article, please? The article was quite well-sourced to start with and editors such as Scott Mac have been vigorous in challenging any additions which, in their opinion, are not well-sourced. Please replace the template with specific {{fact}} templates at the points where you think that they are needed, so that we may act upon them. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Having lots of sources != being well-sourced. The article is appallingly sourced. It has got the NewsoftheWorld and the Daily Mail shit all over it. Almost all of it is sourced by a pastiche of passing mentions in low-brow journalism, which is problematic (see WP:OTTO for why.) You ask why the sourcing needs improved? The problem is that the sourcing is poor, but I also doubt that better sources exist - which is rather why I'd dispute Bearian's close. Reheated journalism is no way to write a good biography - but it seems to be enough to get an article kept. So Bearian recognised the references need improved - but if it is impossible to improve them, where does that leave us? With a constantly sub-standard BLP.--Scott Mac 17:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the language of the close I am concerned this had elements of supervoting, rather than an impartial weighing of the arguments. Given you recently came to me claiming this Yahoo Blog summarising Dail Mail coverage was somehow evidence Pippa Middleton met SIGCOV, can you give me any reassurance in this regard at all? Given the many recent examples of how unreliable the likes of the Daily Mail are for anything, not just BLPs, and given we have a specific notability guideline for people, yet you chose to refer to just the general one in the closure, I'm concerned you may be behind the curve on current consensus on both the issues of reliability and BLP level notability. In terms of ressurance, I'm thinking maybe you could give a representative list of users whose keep arguments you thought were particularly well argued (enough to land this in definite keep territory), as I'm struggling to see any that weren't simply people saying 'yes, she meets GNG' or reciting some other basic policy line by rote, and there appeared to be several simply doing the exact opposite, suggesting no consensus at least. And not many keepers seem to have been able to give specific examples for this subject as to what they were considering to be significant in depth coverage, and those that did seem to have been rebutted by deleters. Infact, I don't think there was a single point raised by the keepers that wasn't also addressed by someone somewhere along the line. Examples of who won/lost those sort of exchanges in your mind would also help to reassure me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • To respond to the requests above:
  1. I think the "refimprove" tag is appropriate, and most editors would agree with me. In particular, the Daily Mail has long been considered semi-reliable - see generally this search, and here specifically: January 2011, October 2009, June 2008, November 2008, and September 2008 for discussions about the Daily Mail as source. I honestly made a mistake in implying that it was totally reliable, and for that, I am sorry.
  2. It does have lots of middling sources (pardon the pun), but I am convinced that better sources could be found and added through the normal editing process. Reasonable people can disagree how to do that. One person wants to be remove the refimprove tag, others want to delete the whole thing.
  3. When closing an AfD, an administrator has to summarize and abbreviate. I added links for people unfamiliar with the policies and essays that I cited. I think it's unreasonable to ask for more than that. I can't create a list of what arguments were better than others. I have two jobs offline, and am caretaking for a seriously ill 69-year-old neighbor. I have a life. I shall take a break on closing AfDs, for about two weeks, in the hope that will make you all feel better. I'm just trying to clean up messes with my mop.
  4. If you strongly dispute my decision, you may take it to WP:DRV, or wait a few weeks and nominate it again for deletion. There are no angry mastodons chasing us if we leave this article up a few more weeks. Who knows? Media speculation may disappear and calmer heads will prevail.
  5. I admit that, when I first started, I was behind the curve on sourcing and notability. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk. I'll get back to you on my recent "win/lose ratio" at AfD.
  6. I respect users like Col. Warden, User:DGG, User:Jokestress, User:Moonriddengirl, and many more. I don't have a specific list written anywhere, but I might create one. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not reassured by this at all tbh. The Daily Mail is completely unreliable, see Jimbo's talk page for an up to date discussion with a real life example on the precise dangers to BLPs of using it at all, even for a few weeks. They have the capacity to ruin people's lives through their lack of fact checking, for which they quite rightly have absolutely no reputation for doing at all. The rest is rather vague, and as such is not much use to me for understanding this closure along the lines of the issues I described. And I cannot take this to DRV without understanding the decision, as I would have no grounds on which to dispute it. I cannot go with just the Daily Mail issue, as you are claiming other better sources exist - I need to know how you know this, or rather, who in the Afd convinced you of this, and with what examples. With all due respect, admins are expected to be able to give a reasonable break down of their decision making when asked - that is in no way considered unreasonable. If you don't have the time, then please set aside the closure so someone else with the time can reclose it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well needless to say I didn't take this as anything but an intentional insult. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised it at ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks more of a consensus to merge to be honest than keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're still minded to believe you've no real need to explain your closing logic, or that there's still plenty of time to clean up this article or get it deleted later on and it can't really do any harm in its current state, then I suggest you research the DYK hook and its supporting source "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?" which landed on the Main Page for the full 6 hours as a direct result of you closing as keep. The person who filed it was one of your 'trusted users', the guy who claimed James was "getting coverage for his business activities years ago" and had "notability in spades" in the Afd, but just failed to offer any evidence of it, and was rebutted by many users. Yes, given his blind assertion, and given the fact he even claimed that such was the amount of direct coverage out there the article would never become a coatrack, it was truly odd then that the source he selected in the article to support a front page DYK factoid about the subject's highly notable cake making business, was not as it turned out an in depth piece in a reliable source giving him significant coverage for his business activities, but rather a taboid hit piece about his sister and the rest of his family, that had precisely two lines about cakes, and what little else it said on him was to note he was a fame seeking university drop out who likes to wear dresses. So, thanks for trusting people like that, and thanks for not letting me into your wisdom about how you manage to evelate his opinion over other presumably less cluefull people. MickMacNee (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any such discussion about me, but rather past discussions about you. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA after some time

Hi, you seem to be quite a controversial administrator and often on my radar in contentious inclusionist situations, supporting many not notable articles that appear to result in deletions or even worse keeps of very low notable weakly cited articles - your closure of this AFD imo is better if you had left it to a admin that could not be described as an inclusionist or deletionist. I don't mind you voting to keep low notability articles and being one of the most famous inclusionists but I do object to such a person closing as an administrator any contentious deletion discussions - and as such after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bearian three and a half years of administrative authority without reconfirmation from the community would you please present yourself for administration reconfirmation RFA thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, and I do admit them when I make mistakes here. I am an inclusionist, but I honestly don't think I've that far off the bell curve of our changing consensus for at least the past two years. You seem angry: I get that from your making and fixing your own typos, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I've long believed that admins should allow themselves to be retained by democratic vote. This is probably the worse time for me (see above), so I'll pass on it for now. Even the President of the United States has a four-year term, and members of most parliaments and legislatures have similar terms. So that means, all things being normal, I'll put myself for reconfirmation this autumn. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, in the meantime I hope you will consider my complaint to you and not close anymore contentions AFD discussions as your edit history makes you unable to claim to be uninvolved. There are plenty of admins without your having to close any such contentious discussions. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I understand your complaint. As I said (see again above), I am taking a voluntary two-week break from closures at AfD, to clean my hands. But I emphasize that I think my recent edit history in fact proves my reasonability. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As time goes on, I see that I'm fairly on track with the community. See below. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the work you do, and want to express my confidence in you as an administrator. Reasonable people may differ on a given tough decision, but I have no doubt that you are a great asset to this encyclopedia. Thanks, also, for helping a sick neighbor in real life. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks! Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My recent record, for the record

For the record, I keep note of every single substantive deletion I've ever made here at User:Bearian/Deletions. I have not been busy lately. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WP:AfD is one of my most important ongoing tasks. I comment on many debates, probably as much as any other admin. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I went through every AfD and RfA that I've commented in in the first 11 days of May. They are as follows:

Recent closures by me

I closed three debates recently; two of the three were uncontroversial.

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton - keep
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of human blood components - keep
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Jüterbog - speedy keep

Recent closures by others with comments by me

Of the recent debates closed, I !voted to delete or keep about half and half. Nine times I supported deletion, and all nine were deleted. 10 times I wanted to keep it; each was in fact kept. One time I made a procedural comment for a deleted article. Once I was weak on keeping, and it was deleted, and once I suggested a merger, but it was deleted. So far, from May 1 to 11, I was "correct" and in line with the consensus 20 out of 22 times, or 90.909 % of the time. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This looks to me like thoughtful evaluation based on consensus, rather than contentious inclusionism. Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. As of right now, my ratio is 27/30 correct, or 90 % right. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As of now, my ratio is 33/36. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Now it is 35/37, or 94.6 %. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Final numbers: I supported deletion 20 times, and every time the article was deleted. I supported keeping (weak keep or keep) 15 times; in 12 cases it was kept outright, in 2 cases deleted, and once it was kept due to no consensus. Three times I urged merging; two were merged and one was deleted. I formatted only the debate once, and the article was deleted. I was unsure once, and it was deleted. Once I came upon an article that was previously merged, so the discussion was closed. I was wrong only three times: Joseph Stack, Bernard Chiu, and Positive Psychology and Religion. So I was incorrect and leaned away from the consensus as "an inclusionist" only 3 times out of 41. However, I was "correct" (and in line with the consensus) 38 out of 41 times, or 92.683 % of the time. Below are the links for reference. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rummage - delete - was deleted
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden - weak keep - was kept
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hope (actor) (2nd nomination) - keep; edited article - was kept
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Delgado - delete - was deleted
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syracuse University ambulance - merge - was merged
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Mostert - weak delete but also edited the article - - Was deleted
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian new religious movement - delete - Was deleted
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Elahl - delete but also edited - Was deleted
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Is It Legal? episodes (2nd nomination) - keep - Was kept
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rooma Mehra - delete - Was deleted
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communalism - merge - closed as Keep, or not delete (This close effectively represents my view.)
  12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Lucas - "Delete - while I am sympathetic and an inclusionist...." - Was deleted
  13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania–Netherlands relations - keep No consensus
  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Nyquist - delete - Was deleted
  15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung's adjustment - delete - Was deleted
  16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial reforms in India - "Delete or incubate subject to re-creation later...." - Was deleted
  17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Administration Miranda-warning proposal - requested comments: "I'll go along with delete." - Was deleted
  18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OverDrive Supplement - formatted only Was deleted.
  19. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Slack - keep Was deleted
  20. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario Piombino-Mascali - I was unsure; it closed as delete
  21. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhoda Jenkins - I changed my mind after the discussion went on, from keep to delete; it was closed as delete
  22. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Fevola _ was unhappy to keep, but agreed with it; it was closed as keep
  23. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly - keep; closed as keep
  24. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming-of-age film - keep; closed as keep
  25. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill Estates - delete; closed as delete
  26. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson - keep; closed as keep
  27. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Bishop - keep; closed as keep
  28. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Chiu - weak keep; closed as delete
  29. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific homophobia - delete; closed as delete
  30. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Jewish control of the media - "Delete and allow recreation by good faith editors as suggested above by several users whom I respect...."; closed as delete
  31. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terri Welles - keep; closed as keep
  32. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chadbourne - delete; closed as delete
  33. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skafish - keep; closed as keep
  34. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days (second nomination) "rescue and keep"; closed as keep
  35. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul-Alain Beaulieu - keep; closed as keep
  36. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Balser Skirvin - keep; closed as keep
  37. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronically influenced hardcore - "Close AfD - this appears already to have been merged. Did I miss something?"
  38. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Psychology and Religion - merge; closed as delete
  39. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Education system in pakistan - delete; closed as delete
  40. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chadbourne - delete; closed as delete
  41. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eskow - delete; closed as delete

Recent RfAs

The two that I supported both passed. I did not oppose anyone recently.

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3 - I supported; closed as support
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 - I supported; closed as support

Bearian (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion

Bearian, you asserted there were RSs (removed from the Trump article) accusing Trump of being homophobic. (Can you identify a clear one? I'd like to see it. Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. Your specific in this matter will save me a lot of research. (Thx.)

I never asserted he was homophobic, or racist for that matter. I just asserted his stances that were are are against gay marriage (despite his three marriages), and for birtherism; and I cited such stances from good sources. I never used the word homophobia or any cognate of such word. Don't put words in my mouth. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Bearian, I wouldn't put words in your mouth, and will apologize if that is what I did. My question above is about assertion that RSs exist, not any personal assertion. Didn't you write this on the BLP/N board when listing examples supporting argument for Trump article deletion?: "2.Removal of sourced material documenting criticism of Trump's birtherism, homophobia, and race-baiting"? (If you didn't write that, then I'm confusing something. Let me know if I've confused anything. I thought you wrote that. And if you did, I was asking if I could know what specific RSs you're referring to, to save me a lot of trouble trying to dig it out of the Edit History.) Thanks for a reply. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You said: "I just asserted his stances that were are are against gay marriage (despite his three marriages) ...". Trying to understand the logic you seem to be implying here ... Are you saying, because Trump had three heterosexual marriages, that fairness and decency dictate, he (Trump) oughta agree to at least one gay marriage, and therefore not be against gay marriage (or at least one of 'em)?! Very confusing! Anyway, you got me *way* off the point, so please, let's not discuss. (Just that your logic seemed so incredible ... thought I should say something.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
All I wrote is that good sources claimed his "birtherism, homophobia, and race-baiting". I personally don't think he's homophobic or racist; it is clear that he is a birther. The point is moot as he's not running anyway. The article still is not as good as it should be. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess you're having touble reading English, so I'll say again for third time, I was asking you to identify one of those RSs. My Q had nothing to do w/ your personal beliefs, and in fact, I don't care about them. Hello? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I can't remember that, which was weeks ago. It would be a waste of time to go back and figure what sources were removed. Over thirty sources were removed. I'm not editing or watching Donald Trump anymore. You won. He's not running. Give it up. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I may be able to answer your question next week. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't expect you to "remember" which RS, just please look it up for me. (Thx.) You asserted one or more RSs exist regarding Trump as homophobe. I'm merely asking for *one* RS which is clear on that point. I'm not asking for numerous, or mutiple, or thirty RSs. (Just one.) Whether you are or are't deciding to edit the Trump article anymore, is really irrelevant, and, please stop trying to personalize this ("You won", etc.) and "reading in" or presupposing some motive on my part, to fit your own temperament. (I just wanna see a clear RS supporting your assertion, that RS(s) exist re Trump and homophobia. Simple as that. Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Trump was openly anti-gay. Is that even in dispute? I thought that was part of his platform and a part of his political appeal. (If you're looking for something more senational, he once called Leonard Bernstein a 'faggot jew', reportedly., but you're only scratching the surface). --Tangledorange (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Tangle, please go away. It took a long thread to get Bearian to even acknowledge what I've asked for in this thread. I don't appreciate you coming in here and confusing that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso, I will do that research as time allows. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. (And just for reminder, just *one* RS, and just re Trump's homophobia.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's a whole lot of fly manure to parse from black pepper. So much stuff was removed between April 21 and May 16 that I can't seem to locate it yet. I found these from May 3 and 4: Thomas_Paine1776 removed cited material about Bob Schieffer's accusations of Trump's racism and his answer. He also removed this material with citations criticizing Trump's "implied racism". HomoLogica, an SPA without a user page, removed the facts cited in an article naming the pundits and comedians who accused the subject of racism. A simple Google search finds lots of good sources about Bob Schieffer. Ihardlythinkso erased a USA Today citation to an op-ed, which we disagree as to whether it's a reliable source. I'll branch out before and after as time allows. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) The op-ed in question was written by DeWayne Wickham, who does not appear to be a notable writer, but he writes often for USA Today, which is a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I give up; I can't find the actual diffs where this New York Times article was removed, wherein Trump compares gay relationships to choosing a golf club. There may have been an edit conflict or oversight in the article's history, too. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your other assertion

I've not been involved in the James Middleton mess but have followed it with interest, and your assertion here is totally and utterly, blatantly wrong. Non-admins cannot reopen threads at AN? Wow. Would you like to retract it or would you mind me starting a recall petition? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup; have to agree on this re discussions on any of the "boards", although I think AfDs are a special case for which we have separate rules. "Hatting" or "closing" a discussion at AN, AN/I, though, or at other discussion boards is a form of talk page refactoring, and our guide for that says, among other things, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my warning on refactoring: a non-sysop participant on an admin thread should not re-factor that thread. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "admin thread". This is quite astounding. What are your recall procedures? I've moved your thread at ANI to AN, as it's not an incident, and maybe there'll be more response there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Cross-posted from AN/I: I understand that my opinion about re-opening, closing, refactoring, etc. might not be shared by the community. That is why I asked the question in this thread. What I don't need is to be badgered here, WP:AN/I, my talk page, other boards, and article talk pages about my administrative decisions. Off2riorob's early closing of this honest effort to get a sense of the community was not helpful. The consensus seems to have changed around me. It used to be that everyone knew their roles and functions, and remained both focused and civil while doing so. Posting in six places makes it considerably more difficult. I see posts here from Iridescent, Prodego, BWilkins, Off2riorob, Onorem, ErrantX, 28bytes, Shadowjams, and Strange Passerby. ErrantX and Onorem especially have raised good points. Iridescent, I do listen; that's why I am right here. While we're here, I don't think that I'm that far off an outlier from the community, and I have the stats to prove my point that I'm no longer an inclusionist (not that there's another wrong with that). Onorem, I already stated on my talk page that I'm taking a Wikibreak from closing AfDs. I think that's enough to get a sense of the community, if not a consensus. Thank you all. (See also Ohiostandard's comment above.) Bearian (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Garrison & Brigadier

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I've answered your question re Garrison in some detail. See Garrison subsection of User talk:Pol098#Brigadier and Garrison and User talk:216.26.202.187. There's plenty more. Best wishes Pol098 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to reflect change of sections on my Talk page). Pol098 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier: March 2011




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello Wikifiers!

Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives.

Happy Wikifying,

Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Hi

Hi Bearian, I am stopping by because I noticed an AN thread that caught my attention. I don't recall having ever interacted with you or anything, and I do share your views on "inclusions" to a large degree. I do congratulate you (albeit belatedly) on your survival of hell week and all; but, I just wanted to mention that getting those few extra buttons doesn't make us any more omnipotent than any other editor here. I'm referring to a recent AfD where you disagreed with MickMacNee. Your post came across as lecturing, condescending, and to some extent patronizing .. at least from my perspective. I'd like to ask that you tone down the "I'm an admin" rhetoric just a tad. Yep, I know Mick can be an extremely abrasive personality here - and his block log would confirm that. However, if someone reopens a discussion, then obviously "someone" had more to discuss. It's just a website dude. Relax. We're not granted those extra couple buttons to be some "be-all-end-all" I know better than you holy "Jimbo". just sayin ... All my best. — Ched :  ?  17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive advice. I've come to realize that I am not really that much more of an inclusionist anymore, compared to the rest of the community. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, I know that I can be pendantic sometimes, both here and off-wiki. It's a habit I'm trying to fix. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Brian, I'm not sure we've ever really interacted before ... although, apparently, according to some people I virtually idolize you (seeing as I don't formally have "friends" on Wikipedia, nor do I idolize anyone, it's rather funny). I just wanted to touch base after the Mick incident(s). I really have no issues with your AfD close, but I think that there was a pretty aggressive (and WP:DEADHORSE) response. Once I saw some abuse towards you, I felt it necessary to step in. I of course don't agree with your statement about reopening threads on WP:AN, however, I do agree that nobody should reopen them if there are horses being flogged. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank, you, too, for your comments! Bearian (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

132.241.127.23- Blocked indef?

Hi. I just wanted to drop you a note about your block of this IP. Did you mean to set it to "indef"? TNXMan 11:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant to block for a few months. For persistant IP vandals, my usual block is 3 months. I just fixed it now. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! TNXMan 13:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive

Sumsum2010·T·C 04:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1313 Mockingbird Lane

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - filelakeshoe 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesMay2011"