User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFeb2010

Articles for deletion/William J. Abraham
You may not have read the degree list carefully enough  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone
Regarding this edit, I would urge you not to give in to the vandals who have been disrupting Wikipedia over the last week or two. I can't speak for anyone else but, if you take a look at my contribution record, you will see that there is at least one other editor making an effort to rescue articles. Just because our illustrious leader makes extremely ill-judged comments leading to such absurdities as this it doesn't mean that we all have to give up on trying to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Texas Comicon
It's a brand new local comics convention. It has neither evidence nor assertions of notability. I'm usually accused of pampering fandom-related articles, but this one seems to me to be an obvious WP:N failure. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Albert Casuga
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Albert Casuga. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Albert Casuga. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod2
Please pay attention to the documentation page of Prod2, which says you should not substitute this template. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Hmm, so your question is now intriguing me more. You beyond rocked out your RfA. Do you think I could pass? People are pretty harsh critics on those. (This is all hypothetical as I still have no current desire to run). C T J F 8 3 chat 08:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually no response please, I don't want to appear to be canvassing. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, any specifics I should focus on before I try in a while? C T J F 8 3  chat 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I kinda find it funny that Ctjf83 just posted here, but I was looking through the Admin Coaches, and saw that you're taking coachees on a case by case basis. I used to be in Admin Coaching, but kinda fell out when I took a mini wikibreak. I was wondering if you're interested in coaching me?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After Feb. 19 and before Mar. 14 would be best for me. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome!  D u s t i SPEAK!! 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Anymore comments on Projectification?
Hey Bearian, anymore comments on: Projectification? I want to know the pros and cons (especially the cons) before I propose it to the wider community, your opinion is vital, thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Incubator/Tim McAuliffe
I had to remove the PROD tag from Article Incubator/Tim McAuliffe as prods are applicable only to articles in articlespace. May I suggest nominating the page in question for discussion at WP:MfD instead (as this is in projectspace)? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD Tag
No problem, I was just under the assumption that the other editor was correct, and was enforcing his views, which was an inexcusable mistake on my part. My apologies. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bielkowicz
Your point? I restored an AFD tag removed by the creator of the article. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fried chicken - so now I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't? I actually did look that one up and could find nothing that was independent and reliable. Make up your mind. And I don't appreciate having you review my edits and nit-picking just because I don't follow your "Do what I think you should do" philosophy. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Facing Deletion
Hello, you nominated my article I posted on Advocacy Resource Exchange about Beyondmedia Education. I have been looking at wiki policy and I am dissapointed at the lack of warm welcome I have received from editors so quickly deleting me. The errors I am making are not being suffiently explained on the wiki-site and other admins are also not giving me conclusive responses or tips on how to correctly list my articles and references. I am following examples from other organizations and I don't feel like I am too far off the mark. I am new at this, and I would really like some advice, because so far wikipedia has not been very user friendly.

yours, CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlotteSchneider (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Just as an FYI of sorts, the last time I checked "noindex" is entirely impotent when used in the mainspace. For future reference. –xenotalk 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Skullptura
Hi Bearian. This article is currently at AfD and a number of people feel that A7 applies, including me. I was about to nuke it but realised that you'd declined a tagging previously, so I thought I'd check with you first - if you have any comments, please feel free to make them at the AfD. Cheers! Olaf Davis (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Bearian,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

funny business?
On 28 July 2009, you decide on the AFD of Conrad Murray as keep. On 5 August 2009, NW stated on that talk page that he wanted to redirect the article. 4 days later, he did so and also protected the article to prevent re-creation. It seems like an admin starting a redirect so soon after the AFD then page protecting it is thumbing their nose at your AFD. Furthermore, nothing of the old article exists in the redirect target. This really doesn't seem right. I just wanted to find some bio info on Murray and it took a lot of work to uncover.

On the other hand, maybe quickly defacto deleting after a keep AFD can be done in this way. I thought Deletion review was the correct way. Please handle this matter as you see fit. Thank you. I'm going to ask on a board for an opinion, need to think which one. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

travel
Looking at your user page, you need to travel more. It's fun! Since you live in New York, you can visit Belgium during a 3 day weekend much easier than someone from a small town in the center of the country. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a lawyer. Some of the Wikipedia policies were written by people in a way that could not work if written in real life. We don't have to write policies like statutes but some are written very badly. Like the "verifiability, not truth". Allow false information? Of course not! I am trying to make some modifications to that WP:V to just make it make more sense but there is some real resistance. I don't know if they are "pulling my leg" or not. What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Related_but_different_idea_about_false_information Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
I'm bringing up this subject because of your expertise in law. Some ideas are not quite formed and may be very rough ideas. Some ideas may even be bad ideas. They are brainstorming ideas, which is just saying them instead of losing ideas due to self-censorship or being scared.

1. Should the policies be in one place so that people can refer to them? Law are in one place. Pro: Convenience and orderly reference. A Wikipedia trustee suggested the same thing. Con: People will resist. I made that suggestion once and an admin was quite rude in asking me to fuck off.

2. Should the policies be codified or at least numbered to encourage an orderly compilation?

3. Should the policies be rewritten to be more precise? Many lack precision. This will be extremely difficult. It would probably only be possible if Jimbo Wales orders it. This is because there is violent opposition to even moving a paragraph up from the 3rd or 4th paragraph to higher.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship I just saw this. One potential problem is that the accused admin may not be properly served. In law (correct me if I am wrong), someone needs to be served and if there is no response, there can be a default judgement entered. However, the process server can't just hide the papers in the person's desk drawer and say "ah ha! You didn't respond or were on vacation...snooze you lose!" Maybe I am not reading things correctly. I don't favor an overly legalistic Wikipedia but some things in real life may give us an idea for how to act in WP. These comments are just a thought. I am not participating in that discussion and don't ask for you to do so. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-Zeus-u 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RS question
I left you a question. :) I'm not an expert in the subject, and I'm not really sure if those sources qualify or not.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Userpage deletions
You recently followed through on a series of db-u1 CSDs in my userspace, but I realized I mis-tagged one of them that I didn't want to delete: User:Akrabbim/Ref desk. If you could un-delete it for me, that would be great. Thanks, &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oligodactyly
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Oligodactyly. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Oligodactyly. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:ATHLETE
As far as WP:FOOTY have interpreted WP:ATHLETE, having played youth team international football (U-17, U-20, U-23) does not confer notability as youth football cannot be considered "the highest level". In order for players to pass, they should have played in a fully professional league, at full international level or at the Olympic games. As the articles stand there are still no assertions or sources to show that either of these players have done anything sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE (ie. actually played at professional, international or Olympic level). King of the North   East  14:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question What are you doing and why?. I am going through poorly sourced and unsourced articles improving them or in cases where they do not appear to meet the extremely/absurdly low level inclusion criteria set by WP:ATHLETE (a sourced assertion that they have played at the required level) I am finding and adding sources, and in the rare circumstances that I cannot find any evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria I am proposing that they should be deleted. King of the  North   East  14:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooly the Oologah Lake Monster
FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 19:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
VernoWhitney (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) VernoWhitney (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

22 Jermyn Street
Thanks for finding that valuable Ebert source. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Too often lack of information and lack of sources at present is used as justification for articles to be deleted. If people find the sources and expand it a lo tof articles could be salvaged. Good news, I've been in acontact with the owner of the 22 Jermyn and he has agreed to sent me some photographs to illustrate it.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out 22 Jermyn Street now. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bearian. Barnstar is much appreciated!! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ARESA
You mentioned in the AFD for this article that you found some sources for this company. Could you post on the AFD with your findings? Note, also cross-posting to User:RadioFan. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 07:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Thanks for that db-user. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Blumea balsamifera
I have a small book with different herbs and illustrations. In the internet there is this source: CHEMICAL COMPONENTS IN VOLATILE OIL FROM BLUMEA BALSAMIFERA (L.) DC., where it says: The borneol source B. balsamifera is also an important herb of Ayurvedic medicine. Xufanc (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)