User talk:Bearian/ArchivesNovDec2013

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Always a pleasure to work with you. Neutralitytalk 06:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bruce Watson (songwriter) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Balance
The Villages, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Richard Nugent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Talk page protection for Talk:Shakuntala Devi

On the RFPP page, you said you were implementing full protection for Shakuntala Devi's talk page, but I don't see it. Also, did you mean full protection? I think semi- is good for both article and talk page, as those with accounts seem to be making good edits as a result of the Google Doodle. – RobinHood70 talk 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, somebody else, Mark, I think did so. I will check that out. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article page was protected yesterday, it's just the talk page I'm worried about, as it was a mess when I logged in today and took some doing to restore. – RobinHood70 talk 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is protection of the talk page really necessary? (Beyond protection of the page itself, which I had earlier requested and was done by some admin.) In your protection log you mentioned violation of BLP, but the author is dead. And I don't see any major issues on the talk page yesterday. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shreevatsa: I'm the one who requested short term talk page protection because this is what all I had to undo when I logged on—that's five cases of vandalism in about 12 hours, including edits to seven year old posts, deletion of an entire section, nonsense posts, etc. Just for fun, several of them weren't "simple" undos because they'd been clobbered by other edits. It wasn't pretty. :) I don't think 48 hours (less now) is going to be too disruptive to the talk page. – RobinHood70 talk 07:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricci Albenda, work more on what?

Bearian, Thanks for your note not to give up on trying to create a page for Ricci Albenda. I tried a few years ago and was asked for more authorities. I inserted authorities to the New York Times and the Museum of Modern Art in NY. It does not get much more respectable than that. What more can Wikipedia need to create the entry? Your help and advice is appreciated.

Ngeorgak (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

undies...

Close enough call, given the ref to the Daily Mail that mentions the brand in connection with the British Olympic team. No doubt written by WP:COI editor. Go ahead and afd it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry H. Kendall

Thanks for assisting with the redirects. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colonie, New York, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newtonville and New York Route 9 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

re: barnstar

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Maney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Liberal Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Talkback

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Jackmcbarn's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Queens Library
 Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Related request

Could you please also delete the redirect Template:Canadian television series (but not the corresponding talk page)? I made a mistake there, which would prevent someone from reverting the move if such is desired later on for any reason. I would like to fix this by moving the page back temporarily myself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

  • Featured content: F*&!

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Serano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unforgettable (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your semi-protection

Hello Brian, as you have been the one who semi protected the article Basque conflict following this bogus request (read more here), could you please, have a look into the contents of the article and do the minimal required corrections (getting rid of the infobox of militar conflicts and calling this organisation what they are, terrorists). This article has reached high attention in the Spanish media as you can check out here due to its biased and cruel nature. I also illustrated the situation in a way that you, as american fellow, could understand. The proposal is of course ironic and a nonsense, but depicts the kind of aberration this article is. Thanks for helping out to solve this situation. All the best, JoanD BCN (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of semi-protection is to prevent vandalism, not to validate one of several versions of an article, nor to punish anybody. As an enrolled editor, you are free to fix the errors yourself. I have 'no horse in this race'. I was just mopping up. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everything is relative, those edits were IMHO not vandalism, but the biased creators and guardians of this entry didn't like them, because they tried to show the other side of the coin. Believe me, if I could have fixed the entry, I'd have done so without asking for help, but there is no "Edit" button for that file. And the separtist editors took of course advantage of it. From an administrator I'd expect a bit more than just saying that it is not his/her business. Thanks anyhow. JoanD BCN (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to edit it now. The article, its talk page, and templates are not fully protected. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical places in Seattle

You proposed a merge of Historical Places in Seattle to the non-existent Seattle landmarks. Did you perhaps mean List of landmarks in Seattle? You also did not open a discussion of the merge. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong button?

I assume you meant to fully protect these, not template-protect them? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, nowawdays, I rarely fully protect articles. If someone can edit templates, they should be trusted. If you want to change them to semi-protection, feel free to do so. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, they are pure redirects to a story. A while ago, the community hashed out when school superintendants and principals, who are otherwise not notable, should have redirects. If you want to proposed them for speedy deletion, I would not oppose that action. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any interest in the redirects themselves, but I can't say I'm really comfortable with the use of template protection in this way. (As a non-admin, I cannot downgrade or upgrade the protection myself.) The community has only approved the use of template protection within the template and module namespaces, and while I personally don't have a problem with occasional IAR uses elsewhere, routine mainspace use of template protection would serve to undermine the purpose for which it was created. Template editing has been the first major victory for unbundling in some time, and "hierarchical structures" are always one of the chief complaints against unbundling; so far, there's been nothing to give rise to such complaints, but using this protection level in mainspace risks just that. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, I see your argument. I will change them, now. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Stratton

The "leader" of a political party is not the same thing as its "president" — think, for example, of the difference between Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus, or between Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There's certainly a consensus to either keep or delete a person who stands as the visible public head of a party, the person who would be the premier or prime minister if the party won the election — but there is not, and never has been, any consensus that a person who holds a leadership role in a party's internal structure (especially at the provincial or state level) is entitled to a keep or a redirect if their own notability as a standalone topic has not been properly demonstrated by the use of sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're saying. Past precedents to redirect exist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of Alberta candidates, 2004 provincial election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green party leaders in Canada. Where should we redirect? (Will also copy at your talk page.) Bearian (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The practice of maintaining candidate lists of that type is not consistently followed in all Canadian elections, just for the record; while the lists are pretty consistently created and maintained for federal elections (and Ontario provincial ones, if only because the editors who are most involved in their creation are almost all Ontario residents), most Canadian provinces have either never had any candidate lists at the provincial level, or have only a random incomplete collection — the Alberta Greens, for instance, only have a list for 2004 and not for any election before or since, while the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Wildrose have lists for 2012, only the Liberals have one for 2008, and no other party besides the Greens has one for 2004. So a candidate list isn't really a viable redirect target, because (a) according to her article she ran in multiple elections, not just one (and the article doesn't even tell us which ones, either), and (b) many of the lists for elections that she ran in don't even exist at all. And since she wasn't a party leader, the list of party leaders isn't a viable redirect target either (it lists only the current public leaders, and doesn't have any space for past ones or for past or present internal executive committee members.) So while I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to redirection in principle, I don't know what would be an appropriate or viable redirect target.
In truth, I'm no longer convinced that the candidate lists are actually an effective solution, under the current state of Wikipedia policy, to the problem they were originally designed to solve ten years ago, when rules like WP:BLP didn't exist yet — as things stand now, the lists actually create far more problems than they solve. But there just isn't a consensus that the arguments against them outweigh the arguments in favour, even though at least to me the arguments in favour represent a very 2004-vintage vision of what Wikipedia's supposed to be, and haven't really kept up with the policy changes that have happened since (frex, there still hasn't ever been any serious attempt to clean the older lists up for compliance with BLP as it exists today.) Frankly, I don't believe the candidate lists are even useful anymore (look, for instance, at Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, which is what the lists get reduced to if they're properly BLP-compliant, and just try to tell me there's actually any value in that anymore.) Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sounds like a discussion at WP:AfD might be needed. Please, can you set up such a discussion? I am entering final exams, and am distracted much lately. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princes of Wales line of succession

My only reservation about deleting this is that the tables in it are quite useful, and someone has put quite an effort into creating them, so I have copied them to Talk:Prince of Wales. If they haven't been copied from some other page, perhaps they can be recycled to somewhere more useful. Moonraker (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clara Amfo

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I improved this article and any input is welcome. @DGG: (Your input is welcome as well.) I don't know if this article would survive AfD or something if accepted because I will admit she's probably more regionally notable but it's certainly an improvement than before. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive (disambiguation)

What's up with the deletion? It's 3+ years old, not recent, and redirects of this sort to disambiguation pages are basically mandated by WP:HOWTODAB. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, revert it if you want it. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm just confused, however, about one thing: when you've got that rabbit exposed at the top of your talk page, won't it be endangered by that kitten you gave me?  :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Talkback

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Ruby Murray's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ruby Murray 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! Ruby Murray 21:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brent entry

not sure what else I need to do - He's been a featured soloist at Carnegie hall, toured Greece and Italy in professional opera companies, was the lead in the NYC production of Tales of Hoffman and just finished a run in Carmen - his listing gets declined and you give page after page to fictional characters from TV show -

96.250.11.12 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) at the end.[reply]

Saw you at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination

Hi, I saw your username listed at WP:RRN and looked over your standards. I think I pass these, but I'm not sure I want to self-nominate at RFA. I guess you can tell where this is going...

P.S. I have an old account that I used from August 2012 to February 2013, in case you think my experience is on the low side.

Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if I nominated you, I'll need a full, uninterrupted seven days to follow your nomination. That won't happen until at least January 6, 2014. You can also self-nominate, or have another sysop nominate you. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and self-nominated. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and supported you. Good luck! Bearian (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Trying to figure out what happened. I tagged for G13 while it was still in AfC project. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I replied on my talk page. I just wanted to make sure I didn't somehow tag G13 on a mainspace article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Larner

I'm disappointed you closed this AfD as keep. The only thing that changed since it was relisted was that we got two more keep !votes but both were disrespectful and failed to give guidelines-based reasons. If it was worth relisting the first time, it worth relisting again. AfD outcomes are supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments, not the number of votes on each side. Further, your reason for closing as keep cites improvements and "heretofore unlikely sources". This is simply not supported by the discussion and clearly represents your own personal opinions. If you felt that way, you should have !voted keep. Closing as keep was a clear overreach. Please reconsider. Msnicki (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not going to change my mind so soon. I'm not being narcissitic, I'm being autistic. The article has been improved enough - to the so-called Heyman standard - that it's barely good enough to keep as at least a stub. The other editors went deep into the Internet to find more sources, and placed them into the rescued article. At a certain point, debate needs to end and we all need to get on with our real lives. Please go to Deletion review or Our deletionist benevolent dictator for life who doesn't like me anyway for appeals, or you may wait a reasonable, few months and nominate it again. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Monica Larner

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monica Larner. 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. Msnicki (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

DJ Many Article Appeal

Hello bearian the DJ Many article was deleted after it was clear that the consensus should have been keep as you voted please restore the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Many_(Disc_Jockey) and protect it against vandalism, thank you Supermusicboom (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I needed that! Bearian (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesNovDec2013"