User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2009

Dan Savage
I added important truth and insight to the Dan Savage page. You evidently don't know his work and/or are otherwise incompetent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Racist vandalism
I have removed edits to Clemson Memorial Stadium by unidentified user 72.198.202.11 with racist content, and left a warning on his/her talk page. Mark Sublette (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear Community Wikiproject
A wikiproject for the Bear community is being proposed, please come and put in your support at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Bear_Community --Skyler (:^| 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Neuropsychophysiology
Hi, Bearian, first of all I wish you a Happy and fruitful 2009!! In the second place, I wonder if you would be so kind as to keep on watching the two critical pages "Michele Trimarchi" and "Neuropsychophysiology". They do not meet Wikipedia criteria and do not respect the five pillars at all. I've made a personal, in-depth research and I couldn't find any notability (I am a senior psychologist with clinical and academic ground) neither in Italian nor in international literature. Furthermore, they didn't answer your invitation to fix the articles nor they respected the deadlines you proposed. Thank you for your attention. PernillaPthor

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesOct2008" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.231.102 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral of All Saints
Can you snap a picture some Sunday for the article? That would be great. -- Secisek (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Little confusion
There isn't conflict of interest, because this article isn´t mine. I'm not Iris Stefanelli. My real name is Regina.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I need to change my nickname?Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. I'm just a fan who likes to contribute in wikipedia.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo
Of course. It's in the public domain, after all. Good luck, and Happy New Year. It's nice to hear from you again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Little context in Megan baker
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Megan baker, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Megan baker is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Megan baker, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramon Flecha
Hi Bearian! From a comment on user's page I understand that you have dealt with this page in the past. I arrived at the page through a categorization in the root of social scientists (which I clean up every now and then), did a bit of work, only to find out at the that the first edit looked a lot like taking ownership. Wile examining the two only links, I found out that the article has been deleted in the past with a little friction. Thought you may want to take a look at the present state of affairs. Feel free to take it from here or leave it as is, whatever you deem appropriate or fits in your schedule. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Outliers (book)
Yes Gary King  ( talk ) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprising at how little content the article has, considering it's success, along with Gladwell's previous books. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet; I'll find some soon. I'm going to work on expanding the article in general first by adding more content. Afterward, I will see what else is missing. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you will be pleasantly surprised with my "teensy weensy" edit (per my edit summary). Gary King  ( talk ) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah; it didn't have much, anyways, mostly just a short blurb about the book. A lot of the info in the article that was referenced to it didn't actually appear there, either. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heya, mind peer reviewing the article if you've got time, at Peer review/Outliers (book)/archive1? Thanks in advance! Gary King  ( talk ) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA standards
FYI, I added a link to your RFA standards to my list of others' takes on RFA. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CRGreathouse RFA
I think his answer to Q24 may swing your weak oppose over. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops: sorry, thought that came through after your vote for some reason. I missed it my first time through the Qs, so thought it was added more recently.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much! I guess that's what happens when you're watching hours of Senate hearings on TV. Joshdboz (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanadlism by unregistered IP
Following the edits made by the unregistered user at IP 216.180.136.81, it appears that the only thing this person has done is vandalism. Bots have warned him/her about unconstructive edits but I don't think it matters. I recommend that this IP be blocked. Best regards, Mark Sublette (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a) for the block, and b) for the tip on where to report vandalism... Mark Sublette (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

MedCab
Please comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence_Thomas User Simon Dodd has repeatedly tried to add his uncited views to the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I was hoping you could speak to the citing of http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/review/Patterson-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin in the Thomas article; I was thinking it could be used, if not attributed to the NYT then at least if we named the author, who's a Harvard professor and former op-ed columnist for NYT, and who did/does book reviews for them. And there are a couple users who claim that the phrase "states' rights" is always pejorative; they're really trying to dictate the narrative and force everyone to always use the euphemism of "federalism," which seems like nonsense to me, as I gave examples of the phrase in use in a lot of current reliable sources, including in the mainstream media, and even in some partisan rightist sources. I know your comment speaks to that a little, but I think these people need some explicit explanation. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of DirecTV channels semi-protection request
Hi can you please semi-protect List of DirecTV channels? A bunch of anonymous users keep putting up phony channels and uncited, untrue statements. ThanksTomCat4680 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Snopes
Hello Bearian! Although, other than gender, nationality, and time-consuming activity, you and I apparently have very little in common. That being said, it pleases me to see that you have appropriated one of my userboxen for your own use. (I only wish that I could successfully instruct my mother to consult that resource before forwarding a great number of email messages to me.) Cheers! —Travis talk 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)



TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Zaid v. Bush and Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives'_habeas_corpus_petitions
After I placed the prod, I found this category with 116 articles, and, as best I can tell, 100-110 of them are non-notable cases where the articles consist entirely of docket filings. (I agree that cases like Rasul v. Bush that went to the Supreme Court are notable cases meriting their own article.) Would appreciate your advice on how best to administratively proceed to avoid WP:MULTI problems. THF (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, how do I go about nominating 100-110 articles for deletion in a single place? Is there an easy way to do that? THF (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard THF (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am frankly mystified that User:THF drew the conclusion that 100-110 of these articles should be deleted, and it didn't then occur to them to contact me to initiate a discussion over their concern. I find this kind of unwillingness to engage in dialog over concerns, with the contributor whose efforts trigger their concern, very disappointing.


 * Bearian, in my opinion, administrators should aim to make a greater effort to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies -- because they should be setting an example for less experienced contributors. When I participate in rfas I ask every candidate to commit themselves to full compliance with the wikipedia's civility policies, if they were entrusted with administrator authority.  As an administrator, who should be setting an example of civil behavior, do you think you could have helped by suggesting THF's first step could be discussing their concern with me?


 * I am trying to figure out the various places where you have been discussing my contributions.


 * Please note What William Glaberson wrote on Sunday:
 * Let me suggest that all 24 of these captives' habeas petitions merits coverage independent of their detention. These are very important cases -- not mundane as THF suggests.  Any of these habeas petitions could be the next one to blow up, as Parhat v. Gates did last summer.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:CRYSTAL problem with writing up filings that might "blow up," but I think you should comment on THF's AN post to avoid WP:MULTI. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Orthogon?
Hey, at Articles for deletion/Orthogon, see my reply, and see if you wouldn't rather suggest a merge. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Violations
hi its got this message from User:sportsman4703 on my user page in regard to The Sportsman Channel. I think its a violation of WP: OWN and WP: NOTWEBHOST as well as WP: NOTADVERTISING. Please send him these warnings.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"From: User:sportsman4703 (talk) While we sincerely appreciate your support in updating The Sportsman Channel Wikipedia page, we we would like you to please refrain from making any more updates. We are not currently carried over any air broadcasting. I represent The Sportsman Channel and will only allow verified updates to our page. Thank you again for your support.."

WikiProject Capital District
Greetings fellow Capital District resident! Another user and I have created WikiProject Capital District and are hoping to find locals that would be interested in helping develop the project and/or spread the word of the project by labeling articles that are under our scope. Any help would be appreciated and I thank you very much in advance! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your efforts! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
There seems to be an edit war going on in List of current Major League Baseball announcers. Could you please semi-protect it? Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillibrand article
Feels like all news out of New York state lately is rumors, what with the she-did-no-she-didn't-yes-she-did confusion with Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal last night. Well, I guess where it stands now is where it stands until something changes, or until Paterson makes his official rollout tomorrow lunchtime. --Kudzu1 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oof. Didn't see that one. Well, thanks for doing that - hope it stops the monkey business. --Kudzu1 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanjivellam
At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.

If you have further reliable sources, or other information about how this article can be developed without simply redirecting it to Gruel, please leave a message at Talk:Kanjivellam. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for comment
Thanks again for joining this new WikiProject. It has been requested though that it still go through the nom process. Would you mind taking a couple minutes and commenting at the proposal page? Thanks very much! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Speaks Prod
Do you think deletion or changing to a redirect to the author's article would be the best approach here? I would be Ok with either. Cheers. NoVomit (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The author's article is up for AFD. Do not redirect before the AFD is up, that can cause all manner of problems.  Also, take a look at her other book or books, if author's article dies in AFD, that's a good indication that the other book or books aren't notable either.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The AFD will very likely close as keep, perhaps SNOW-keep.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Brittainalford
Thanks for catching that, Bearian. I've userfied some new pages that are clearly auto-biographies in the wrong namespace, but in this case I didn't notice the username similarity. Glad to have an extra pair of eyes. :-)

Interesting that you mentioned WP:BITE; as time goes on, that guideline has really become more important to me, especially recently. The last thing we need is to further the bad impression that this website is full of unwelcoming insiders, deleting our newcomers' articles with an onslaught of rules – I thought the "comments" section in this news article was very revealing. Best, Jamie ☆S93  03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother 3
If you're interested in Mother 3, I request that you provide your assistance in the article. Thanks! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Could you perhaps copyedit the gameplay section maybe? Wouldn't want people to be spoiled by this game's great plot. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just glad you are here editing, making wikipedia a better and more inviting place. "Grieg's music in popular culture" added too with my nifty new template. Ikip (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List of DirecTV channels still being vandalized
Hi people are still vandalizing List of DirecTV channels by putting false channels and deleting channels. Please semi-protect it indefinitely.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please ban the anonymous user with IP address 72.92.4.244. they have vandalized several articles with false information.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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 automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)