User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2010

Albek Duo
Dear Professor Logan,

I want to thank you for providing editorial help for the article on the Albek Duo which I am now working on. I want it to comply in all respects with Wikipedia standards, and in line with your suggestions, I will be providing inline citations in support of the text.

I do want to say that I have no professional connection with the Duo nor do I serve in any capacity as a manager, agent or publicist. I am a web designer for cosmetic and skin care companies.. But I have attended several of their recitals and concerts, I have interviewed them, and I believe them to be one of the really important emerging chamber music ensembles. They have played all over the world, and after they premiered a new double concerto (the first since Mendelssohn), Naxos Records sought them out and immediately recorded their performance. So I hope you might consider removing the advisory about the author having a professional connection.

As I work to improve this article, I hope you will offer suggestions. You have improved a significant number of Wikipedia entries, and I feel honored to have you looking after this one.

Sincerely,

Marina ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinaperry (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

LadyKiller(band)
my page LadyKiller(band) was deleted. it should not have been. Before I completed my explanation about why it should not have been deleted as it contained many cited sources and explained an interesting relationship between world renowned recording artists and a world renowned studio - I came to find it had already been deleted. If this page has been taken down - then all of the wikipedias related to it - or any wikipedia page about any musician or band should be taken down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyKillerRock (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at 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) 22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Tree please restore article with full history
The article was recently restored by me after a thorough discussion. I can add additional citations, however after a discussion with two admins including the closing admin, is was mutually agreed that I can restore the article due to an improper delete without going through DRV where it would be both time consuming and unnecessary. If you reviewed the AfD for Devil's Tree you can see that the decision should have no consensus. I can add additional citations if you feel the article does not pass, however during the AfD even an admin Daniel Case agreed that the articles two citation from nj.com and the courier post meet WP:GNG.

I was hoping you could review the AfD and my discussion history. Thanks! Valoem  talk  00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent closure

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   asked and answered. In respect to this closure, I would note that: "Although editors should normally not ignore the outcomes summarized here, they should always be used with caution, as there may be conflicts between past outcomes and current policies or guidelines. The typical outcome may not apply to an unusual situation or edge case. Avoid using this informational page as the sole argument in an AfD discussion. As this list of outcomes is not binding, the fact that a particular outcome is common should not be interpreted as indisputable evidence that a particular topic is either always entitled to a separate article or never allowed an article."
 * 1) WP:OUTCOMES appears to make no comment about "bilateral relations of medium-sized nation-states".
 * 2) WP:OUTCOMES itself explicitly disavows making "per se" claims about its results:

I would therefore suggest that the closure as "speedy keep" is doubly unjustified. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments to speedy keep, by several respected and long-time editors and admins, convinced me. Your results may differ, but you can't win every time -- Wikipedia is not a democracy.  The community elected me to make sometimes difficult decisions, similar to which I make every day in my two jobs off-line as a college professor and an attorney.  For the past few years, a strong consensus has emerged that certain types of articles are always kept, while other are not.  No, WP:OUTCOMES does not explicitly say that Yaks live Tibet, and neither does it say the two propositions that were part of the basis of my closing to keep the article.  Often an arbitrary line must be drawn.  For example, high schools are generally kept, as are IR (international relations) between two large or medium-sized nation-states.  The Bilateral relations debate, in particular, has gone on, and a consensus has been clearly fixed.  This is not the place, nor is AfD, to make a long discourse on the particulars of the arguments over the recent past, about which IR has engaged the WP community.  Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that this has been "hashed out" already in many deletion discussions.  Now to answer what I think are your sepcific disagreements:  The Philippines is a nation of over 90 million persons (the 12th largest country in the world), and while a state of only 65 years, was a tribal nation for about 24,000 years.  Denmark is 109th in rank by population among nation-states, placing it virtually in the middle of all sovereign countries, and is about 1200 years old.  As the article shows, the two nations have had extensive political, economic, and treaty relationships over the years, attested to by reliable sources.  It is attested that the Danes have given significant financial aid to the other nation, and that many Filipinos live in the former nation.  Both are also allies of the United States and are primarily Christian nations.  Both fought on the same side in World War II, and thus have been allies.  There are no conflicts that were raised between this article and any guideline, rule, or policy.  Although WP is an encyclopedia that relies mostly on secondary sources, primary sources from government web sites are always considered reliable and acceptable.  The article has those good sources, and in sufficient quality and quantity to meet our basic notability requirements.  That having been said, articles are a speedy keep at AfD when a consensus of the community agrees that an article is, or could be, and their arguments rule, when further debate would be unproductive.  In this particular case, DGG and other users whom I respect made good arguments.  AfD is not for getting rid of poorly written or sourced articles.  The article was listed for more than eight days, was re-listed, and still the consensus was moving towards keeping it.  I am both an inclusionist and an eventualist; I err on the side of keeping, and having been here for over three years, I know that WP is not going away tomorrow.  On a final note, I am suspicious of nominations for deletion about unpopular subjects - the Philippines being one such category for some odd reason.  The nomination made, and makes, little sense to me, unless one assumes that all brown people are the same, and thus articles about them not worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. The arguments on the losing side seemed to focus on marginal issues - that Muslims exist in the country, that the article had too much trivia, that the sources were merely primary or government websites, and the like. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To be bluntly honest, this is one of the most biased, partisan AfD closures I've seen in some time. I would suggest, at minimum, you redact your illegitimate "speedy" and your editorialising. Better yet, recuse yourself from it altogether. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If you were not claiming WP:OUTCOMES as the authority for your "According to past discussions here at AfD", then you should not have piped that phrase to that page. As "WP:OUTCOMES does not explicitly say that Yaks live Tibet", it would be wise not to pipe that claim to that page.
 * 2) Your ludicrous claim that "the two nations have had extensive political, economic, and treaty relationships over the years" makes it appear that you have not read the article. The treaty/political relations contained therein would be better described as sporadic and low-level. Trade between the two nations is tiny in comparison to either's GDP (not surprising, given the distance between them, lacking significant products that either can't get closer).
 * 3) It is NOT "attested that the Danes have given significant financial aid to the other nation, and that many Filipinos live in the former nation." The first was a mistaken claim made by DreamFocus in the AfD. The second is an exaggeration of a few thousand Philippinoes working as (temporary worker) au pairs in Denmark.
 * 4) As to the following claims:
 * 5) "Both are also allies of the United States and are primarily Christian nations." Those same two claims can be made of dozens of nations -- it is therefore grants no particular significance to their bilateral relationship (and Denmark is mainly Protestant, the Philippines mainly Catholic, and neither is part of the same defence alliance with the US).
 * 6) "Both fought on the same side in World War II, and thus have been allies." They 'fought' (only nominally) in completely separate theatres of the war, and neither played a significant part in it (the German invasion of Denmark lasted 6 hours, the Philippines being defended mainly by the US, with the Philippine Army only experiencing a handful of casualties).
 * 7) "Although WP is an encyclopedia that relies mostly on secondary sources, primary sources from government web sites are always considered reliable and acceptable. The article has those good sources, and in sufficient quality and quantity to meet our basic notability requirements." This is rubbish! WP:GNG explicitly demands "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (my emphasis).
 * 8) Your "speedy keep" closure met none of the requirements of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, and so is illegitimate.
 * 9) "DGG ... made good arguments." ROFLMAO! DGG made one dogmatic argument by assertion (which just happens to be an assertion you clearly agree with).
 * 10) The pattern has in fact been of AfDing bilateral relations of Denmark, with a grabbag of countries it has no substantive historical, cultural, defence or trade ties with. The nomination makes perfect sense in this context.
 * 11) Being of the view that "coverage relat[ing] to Philippine Muslims being upset about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" is irrelevant to the topic is perfectly correct, as the Philippines government is Catholic-dominated and as the article does not and (AFAIK) never did mention this incident. Your closure claim that "the nomination smacks of disliking one part of the article, focusing on incendiary religious controversy" is thus a gross violation of WP:AGF.
 * I have to agree here. This was an improper "speedy keep", especially with regards to the "inherent notability" argument which has no basis in policy.  Them  From  Space  08:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not going to argue with you, as I have stated my case already. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar for Del Cerro, San Diego, California - and thanks for changing your !vote to "keep". I guess if the article is kept I can add it to my tally of "rescued articles"! --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting


--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

FYI
I created a new article, Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference. (Posted about it to talk page of multiple WikiProjects, including WP:LAW.) Thought you might be interested. ;) Any assistance with research would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you feel better! Thank you for the kind words about the article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

re Request
Not sure. The account is clearly WP:SPA. And clearly violating WP:BLP, WP:V, etc. Who do you think it could be a sock of? -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

/* Speedy deletion nomination of Erasmus Mundus Association */
Dear,

I understood your comments and i'm sorry that i didn't provide any references. Please don't remove my page and i will provide the references everytime, when i'm editing.

Thanks in advance and please remove the speedy deletion to my page.

Naveen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenchenna (talk • contribs) 09:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug
Ok, time to bug you again....lol.... C T J F 8 3 chat 01:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bands Against Bush nominated for deletion again
As you commented in the earlier discussion, I wanted to make you aware of Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush (2nd nomination), which I have just started. Please feel free to comment there if you wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia talk:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion"‎
Bearian,

This post is in response to this deletion: "Wikipedia talk:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page)

The deleted page is for an essay involved in a key discussion regarding one of the pillars of policy. In WT:V we are working on the problem of ambiguity in the word "threshold" in the first sentence of WP:V. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability had a previous life at [here] and [here].

Blueboar opposed the recent call for consensus, so his blocking is key.

Blueboar is one of a few authors that have opined ([here]) that there were multiple "thresholds" in creating content policy.

I introduced the concept of "policy sculpting" [[here]], after creating the now-deleted page.

In the material you deleted, Blueboar agrees that he likes the word picture. The page you have deleted was viewed 25 times in one day.

So the only problem of which I know is that I haven't attracted a registered user to make the WP: page. So I request that you do so, using the "Second draft" from the WT: page.

Thanks, RB 66.217.117.29 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearian, A "Request for undeletion" has been requested [here]. FYI, RB  66.217.118.129 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 01:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

template:CJK ideographs in Unicode and R3?
Re Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_12. I don't understand the backgrounds ("recently created" -- yes, after a Move; "unused" -- huh, no WLH list then?), but fyi: I might suggest the whole RfD be revoked later on. -DePiep (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom Christianity
What sources did you find the first time around? I'm amazed that you found any, given that this isn't the movement's name. Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)