User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJanApr2017

Brackensick
Hey - I just saw your message over on Samwalton9's talk page. I'm curious why you've changed your mind on the Brackensick article, since voting in the original AfD. I do recognize that the majority of people to have weighed in on this matter oppose restoring the article. And so I can understand opposing restoration, on the basis of consensus. But do you personally feel that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Or would you have supported restoration, had others done so as well? --Jpcase (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, I changed my mind, which is rare indeed! Originally I thought he was notable, but have since become convinced by the discussion that he's just not notable as the consensus has shown. I almost never oppose a merger, if that's what the crowd wants. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! I can see that no one else is with me on this one. So unless something changes significantly, I won't continue pursuing the matter. But I may be involved with other American Idol related articles down the road. As you may have seen me mention over on Samwalton9's talk page, it would be helpful if, going forward, I could have a clearer sense of why other editors feel that various finalists from the series aren't individually notable. I understand that WP:ONEEVENT has been cited as a rational, and that in this particular case, no one feels that the new sources I've found are adequate for conferring notability. But I've yet to receive an explanation for why other editors feel that my interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT is incorrect. And while a few of the sources that I've found have received valid criticism, that doesn't mean all of the new sources should be disregarded out of hand. I can recognize that the consensus on this matter is against restoring Brackensick's article. But the vast majority of AI finalists seem to have standalone articles, regardless of how much of a music career they've had separate from the show. So I'm confused as to why Brackensick should be treated differently. Are you willing to share why you've changed your mind? I'm just curious to know if there's something in Wikipedia's policy that I'm misunderstanding. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , as time has gone on, the crowd of Wikipedians have become more conservative, if you will, about notability, especially for creative types of people. For an example of what's happened to American Idol contestants, see Articles_for_deletion/American_Idol_contestants. I'm most concerned that some musicians who used to be considered notable will now be deleted. The same this is happening to college professors. I've given up fighting every little battle. Bearian (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD that you linked to is from ten years ago. It looks like all but one of those articles have since been restored - and the only one that hasn't been is for a semi-finalist, as opposed to a finalist. Even today, there seems to be very little precedent for redirecting articles about AI finalists. I'm not looking to drag you into anything. It's understandable that you don't wouldn't want to get involved with contentious policy disagreements - I'm likely to drop the matter myself. But I'm just curious whether you personally feel that these kinds of articles should be redirected, or if you're simply going along with consensus. --Jpcase (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord,, I am a bleeding heart liberal compared to most Wikipedians. I'd include all seven or eight AI finalists. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Evan_Matthew_Cohen
If you disagree feel free to remove the tag, but according to WP:ENT an actor should have made a significant contribution to the entertainment community or have a cult following. Now whether his contributions are significant are subjective.
 * , no problem. I just wanted to be certain that you were intentional about it. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Interview
I wish you the very best of luck for your 16 January interview. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
 * . Oops, it's January 12, 2017, but thank you! Bearian (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Lee v. Tam Cato brief
Since I know you enjoyed the Cato Institute brief in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, you might enjoy their brief in Lee v. Tam. Scotusblog is hosting the amicus briefs on its Lee v. Tam page. Not as great as the SBA brief, but a good read. TJRC (talk)

Katherine McGrath
It did try to find sources at the time, but was unable to do so. Look you are free to disagree with my proposed deletions, as is your right. However, please refrain from making assumptions about me, you do not know anything about my age or background. I am just trying to improve the American actor stubs as best I can. Kingstoken 00:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, . I just assumed since she's older that you night not have heard of her. You have no personal information on your page, so I was making a guess. My apologies. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Question re:AFD rules
I followed a link you used recently WP:BARE and found this: "Any registered user has the right to propose an article for deletion..." You've been around longer than I have, and I see your regularly at AFD. My question: is this true? I am, unsurprisingly, prompted to ask because of an AFD, Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination), a nomination that prompted me to wonder whether an IP is permitted to bring an article to AFD. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , interesting question. Technically, an IP user can not start a deletion discussion on their own, because they can't create a new page. However, they can start the process and receive assistance from a sympathetic registered user. Even assuming good faith, I do not assist IPs in such regard, because I'm never sure who they are, and what COI or hidden agenda they might have, and I don't want to get entangled in unnecessary drama ("Pick your battles," they say). Just to be certain, I did a "whois" search on that IP, which you can, too. I think I've nominated about five articles for AfD over the past decade; don't tie me down to that exact number, it's based on my memory. I used to have quite the reputation as inclusionist, but I'm sort of deletionist lately. That being said, I commented on the discussion in question and !voted "keep" for the reasons noted here as well as there. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's very interesting.  Just by the bye, At first I was an ornery inclusionist, fighting hard to keep articles on very minor figures.  As time has gone by, I have not merely gotten a better grasp of the enormity of our PROMO problem, and become far more  discriminating about what constitutes notability, but also become aware of our SYSTEMIC biases - not excluding the recentism caused by the fact that so little pre-internet media is available online, and the problem of editors aggressively bringing aces to grind.   That said, an occassional article still gets my dander up, as this one die.  Again, thanks for taking the time to explain this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Stifle (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

delete proposal
I improved the articles of Zahir al-Din Mar'ashi and Yunus Al-Katib Al-Mughanni, I think now they are good enough to not be deleted. The Encyclopedia of Islam has entries about them, so these two important historical figure can also have articles in Wikipedia IMO. -- Kouhi (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll drop the issue,, based on your assertions. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Reporting illegal aliens in the United States
Don't sling mud at a new editor. --Ethanbas (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kittens reduce stress.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 
 * Thank you, . Bearian (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

 * Thank you kindly, Bearian (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for remembering! Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

March 11: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (and beyond!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeanette Pasin Sloan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oeuvre. 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) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Afd question.
Hi Bearian, I saw recently you contributed to one of the AfD pages for one of the articles I created. I recently commented there to help address some of your concerns. Do you have any ideas on how I can edit this article and further change it so it would be up to your standards? I strongly feel this article deserves a place on Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate your support. The subject of the article is a big star in the teen world and has a growing fan base of over 420,000. Let me know what I can do to help prove this article has a place in our community. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicSource17 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! I recently responded to your request on the AfD page for one of the articles I created. I was unfamiliar with the term CEA, and could not find much information on how to properly conduct one. I tried my best to take an educated guess on what information a CEA might provide, but I was unsure if there was a certain format I must stick to. If you could point me in the right direction I would love to provide a proper one for you. Hopefully I have provided enough additional information in my comment on the AfD for you to help sway your prior decision. If there is anything else I can provide please let me know! Thank you!! MusicSource17 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Freezing rain
Yes, I guess so! Thanks for helping wrap this up, even though I was the nominator. KDS4444 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability of a biography
I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know (I'm not an expert in LDS scholarship), and I don't care (I'm interested in science, law, and other matters that I am familiar with). To be blunt, I'm really busy and stressed in real life, and I just don't want to get involved. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Respect
think if you are issuing threats, you owe the courtesy of citing a cause. Would you please explain why you have gotten so riled up? Wikipietime (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elaboration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function. 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) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned at DRV
Hi Brian. I mentioned you at DRV, regarding the creation of a redirect at a redlinked category. I think I messed up the ping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Vision vs. Mission Statement
You suggested possibly draftifying this before the user removed the PROD. I'm not sure if it would get much improvement, but I also don't want to turn a user off from Wikipedia. Your thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After ten years,, I just get a feeling that some articles can be rescued, and some can't be. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fulbourn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector. 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) 09:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow! I am overcome, Bearian - thank you so much! (& hope I am not mangling etiquette here) Reflection (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sadasivan
I didn't bother arguing at the time but pinging someone in an AfD, even though you noted "no pressure", is canvassing in my mind. Especially when it is someone like DGG. The close is poor, given that even DGG suggested he was blurring the guidelines to support inclusion, but I'll let it go for now. If there is no improvement in, say six months, it will be going back there: there are plenty of English-language resources in India (it is an official language there) and Sadasivan wrote entirely in English, so lack of coverage is lack of coverage. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I never, ever, canvass. Pinging someone at AfD is not always canvassing. I have no more finches to give. I have !voted in ten thousand AfD's, and if you can find any such evidence of my canvassing at Wikipedia, please bring it to my attention. If you see from the context, I was seeking his input to see if I have to change my mind to the other side, not to get another vote for my side. DGG is known to have access to librarians' data bases, and he knows how to use them. At one time, I was an inclusionist yet have trended otherwise to deletionist. If you look at this log, you will see clearly that I am in line with all Wikipedians about 94.9 % of the time. In any case, all the admins know that DGG & I have known each other for a long time, in real life, and I often seek his advice, not the other way around. Since I am no longer an admin, nor an officer in my local chapter, I have no explicit fiduciary duty to avoid even the appearance of propriety. is a retired librarian, and one of the most beloved and respected editors amongst all Wikipedians. There was also no harm done since the AfD in question ended up in "no consensus". So I'm not sure what you're getting at. What is your issue? What are you trying to do? Bearian (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and for that matter, I ave been gradually shifting too into a more deletionist direction, at least as far as promotional articles are concerned. And anyone who pings me knows that I may often not follow any  suggested or implied approach to the problem. .  DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have a Pragmatics problem here., I'm not sure you were aware of all the context. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Faithless electors
Hi. Remember Articles for deletion/Robert Satiacum Jr., a group AfD on half a dozen faithless 2016 electors that closed as "no consensus"? All electors in the list have since been deleted, with Robert Satiacum Jr.. He was defended partly on the grounds that he had had a role in a film, but that film was just deleted Articles for deletion/Rain in the Mountains. To me, he looks like a non-notable politician, I woule be interested in your opinion. Note that source 8. is primary, sources 9, 10 on his page are local, and all the others are about being an elector.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's possibly notable as a "first" - the first Native American Faithless Elector, . Bearian (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * is that a significant reason for this particular form of notability (as distinct, say, from success against prejudice in a once-restricted profession) ??  DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Native Americans were not allowed to vote unless they paid taxes,, until 1964. So they could not run for Federal office. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)