User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2011

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary notice
Thank you for your forbearance during holidays and my recent Norwalk virus attack. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Approach the witness


The article Approach the witness has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is not a common law legal term. It is a colloquial saying that is not notable. The sources are 1) false, 2) poor, and 3) deadlink. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hairyns (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Oppenheim
Thanks for the kind words. You forgot to sign your opinion at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Oppenheim; you might want to go back and do that. An opinion from a respected editor like yourself will be given due weight; an unsigned opinion could be taken as just another sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"vandalism"
I would appreciate it if you didn't characterize my edits as "vandalism". I disagree with you on the preferred version of the article, which, it seems, has been subject to some edit-warring (which you yourself have engaged in) and multiple reverts. Are you having article "ownership" issues? At any rate, please don't threaten me with blocks of whatever - if you disagree, take it to Talk. LaoZi81 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But ya are, Blanche, ya are! Bearian (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nominations
Happy 2011! I generally don't self-nominate, but you are very welcome to add anything I have started. Glad you decided to stick around after my welcome! You've been of great value to the project! Jokestress (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to save the article, move it to wikia

 * http://yogibear.wikia.com/wiki/Yogi_Bear_Wiki or http://hanna-barbera.wikia.com/wiki/Hanna-Barbera_Wiki would be a fine place for an article about Ranger Jones.  D r e a m Focus  02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranger Jones
Hi. I noticed that you merged content from Ranger Jones to The Yogi Bear Show while WP:Articles for deletion/Ranger Jones was still open. The AfD has nearly unanimous support for merge, so it isn't a big deal, but you should be aware of the last item in WP:Guide to deletion. You may like to review copying best practice (edit summaries and tags) at WP:Merging and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I'll clean it up after the AfD closes. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that 411. I am always learning new things. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

John Lindow

 * 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 Well, I just learned something -- apparently being a full professor at a major research university equates to the WP:PROF requirement of holding a major chair! I don't think they are the same thing at all, and as I said at the AfD, I think the widespread citing of his works is an artefact of the biases of the search tools, both towards the US and towards recent writings - the cites for rival works fall too far back to come up as frequently as hits. I'll accept it and I'm glad the article got improved somewhat, although if he were really notable it should have been changed much more thoroughly, IMO. (I was hoping to be proved wrong and I don't believe I have been.) 2 or 3 people really digging still weren't able to make anything of a decent length with any substantive references. But I am concerned at the precedent this sets. On this basis pretty much any tenured professor who's written a textbook or two on, say, English literature is notable enough for an article. So FWIW, recording that concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually I don't write a thesis just to close an AfD. That's why I added all that explanation.  Being a full prof. at a Tier I university counts towards notability, in my opinion; it is necessary but not sufficient. This is not a precedent in the bad sense you may fear. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, having a page on Wikipedia is rightly or wrongly taken as a badge of merit. All the more so since the crackdown and teh writing of the notability guidelines. This chap is a textbook case of there simply not being enough evidence of distinction, and the editors who wanted to keep the article demonstrated that by not being able to find anything much to add. Not even praise for his work from a review. The existence of the article thus amounts to "He exists and he has a full professorship at Berkeley." Everyone who reaches that level has published something, and there is a lot of recentism - and Americanist bias - in who one chooses to cite if one isn't in the field. Especially when the field is as recondite as this one. (It's not one in which universities hire; in the US, I believe even the Indo-European Institute at UCLA has folded, since I haven't heard word one about it in ages, and in fact it is now fashionable in academe to attack the Indo-European hypothesis itself. Note that he started out in related fields and went into Norse mythology later.) Within the field, I believe it's telling that he was not invited to contribute to this book, for example. More broadly - and because it is possible that we have all missed stuff; as I said to Bloodofox when I nominated the article (and you will note he did not participate in the AfD to defend it), with academics you often don't have enough reliable sources to make an article until they die and you get obits - that's the way Wikipedia's policy is. Reliable sources are required; there are notability guidelines for a reason. And the trend is to be stricter and stricter - I'm constantly being told it's all about the quality now. This guy doesn't meet any of the criteria, and there are surprisingly few sources about him. I do mean surprisingly - he doesn't appear even to have been interviewed for a newspaper about Vikings. I'd personally be happier if Wikipedia went back to its roots, threw out notability guidelines and required references only for contentious material, leaving notability to "Someone cares enough to write about this, ergo readers might want to look it up" as was originally teh case. But since that policy changed and standards continue to get stricter, this is a real anomaly. Hence my view of it as a bad precedent. There are an awful lot of people with publications who are full professors at major universities (whatever your definition of Tier 1, it's a huge group). I see no reason except possibly the invited speech on folklore that he meets the stated standards, including no reason to Ignore All Rules in his particular case, and no reason to waive them in this particular case. So, bad precedent. I'm glad we got 3 articles started on people who I do consider notable in the field - albeit very stubby little starts that I will now have to work hard to improve since I'm one of few experts here in this field. But I hadn't created those articles because I didn't believe I had the RS to defend them at AfD, and as I understand it, that must be a consideration these days. Bloodofox usually does great work referencing things - I was surprised he was the author, and that he'd never filled the article out. Then 4 of us proved there just wasn't the data! Anyway. Thanks for your time. You obviously consider consensus was reached. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (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.

RfA criteria
Hi Bearian. I just stumbled by accident on your RfA criteria. FWIW I also have a sub page at User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. It's a long longer, rambles a bit, but also contains plenty of factual and personal analysis (and typos!). You may like to check it out. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New York State Assembly
My pleasure - thank you for the well-formulated articles on new state legislators. I wish there was someone like you for every state in the union. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

DYK nomination of Aravella Simotas
Hello! Your submission of Aravella Simotas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit nervous, yeah. A few nights ago, someone claiming to represent her made two new accounts and basically deleted everything from the page. I had to report those accounts to AIV and then request that it be protected. But really, I don't see why her date (or place) of birth should be removed, because it's not negative and as you said it's widely available information. - PM800 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador! Sadads (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Aravella Simotas
Ms. Simotas has emailed OTRS asking that the article be deleted, I told her that was unlikely (read: no) but gave her some advice including how to ask for changes on the talk page, please be alert for any requests that look as if they come from the subject. I'm sure I can rely on you to be tactful. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for the Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar. It's nice to know that I positively contributed! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Aravella Simotas
Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

reconsider
Please reconsider your recent removal of the block for 194.176.105.41. Despite the "email received from uninvolved instructor", the IP is still at their general disruptiveness. You can see their talk page and their edit history for more information. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been re-blocked. No good deed goes unpunished. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL indeed! Thanks for looking :) Srobak (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Freedom of speech articles
Hi Bearian, hope you are doing well. ;) You may be interested in some new articles I wrote, pertaining to the subject of Freedom of speech: Enjoy, -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Beyond the First Amendment
 * 2) Net.wars
 * 3) Freedom of Expression (McLeod book)

Question for you
A more general query: Do you know of any active editors from the WP:WikiProject Law area (other than yourself), who are interested in contributing to articles on the subject of Freedom of speech? -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I have been very busy in real life.  What about User:Brad? Have you contacted WP:LAW? Bearian (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I notified him, at User_talk:Bradley0110. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
It looks like you blocked The King's a-poopin' for his talk page edits. He is back as Donny Pearson. 76.250.189.117 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)