User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarApr2011

DYK for Duanesburg High School
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Hernandez Jr.
What part of "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving ..." do you not understand? You are not a noobie, and should know better. Further such obnoxious moves shall result in your being blocked. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hello Bearian. Let me begin by saying you are right.  I should have waited a couple more days.  However, I think you were just a tad over-the-top here with your response.  First, the original AFD closed as a “No Consensus” with an opinion leaning towards Redirect.  Second, as you can see by the ongoing AFD, as of today (and your right the consensus could change, but realistically not likely) to Redirect.  The third point is more of a question;”…how was this move obnoxious”?  Finally, I noticed in your edit summary that you protected for “Persistent Vandalism”, what’s that about?  Either way it goes, hope you have a good day.  Thanks for your note…it won’t happen again.  ShoesssS Talk 17:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Elle Mehrmand
I hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I know you would side on not deleting an article if possible and you did make (an admittedly) minor edit on this article once, so I hope you don't mind. But I believe there are COI issues in both the creation of the article and now that there are COI issues explicitly in the AfD -- which may include the possibility off line canvassing issues as well -- it should be addressed by an administrator more experienced in dealing with wikipolicy rather than me trying to continue to debate it with editors who may or may not be interested in that. If I am wrong I'm fine with learning that as well. Thank you XinJeisan (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ypsilanti Food Co-op
A good cleanup may help, but don't expect the house to build itself. If you can be bothered to say "keep but cleanup", you can be bothered to at least try a cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

YFC very worth of wiki entry: solar power, solar-powered bakery, self-production of honey. The list goes on and on.
Bearian, hi.

When you wrote, in the dialogue about Ypsilanti Food Co-op deletion, "I found whole bunches of whole oats of wholly reliable sources online with a fews clicks of the mouse on the links given above," what did you mean? I'm eager to find more source material to reduce spamminess of the YFC entry.

Many thanks, and warm wishes,

FoodNotFord in Ypsilanti

ps
No idea how I'll find/hear your reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodNotFord (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Enlarge the Circle
Thanks for your support at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing. The expanding socialization of our beloved WP is in the wind. No Wall of Acrimony will stand in the way. TRA! Buster Seven   Talk  02:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Enjoy!

Danke. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

National Childminding
You don't have to let me know if you remove a speedy tag but thanks anyway. Of course, being a "large organization" is not a criteria for notability. I see the editor has added some appropriate third-party references to support the article and appropriately contested the speedy with comments on the talk page. Warfieldian (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this and for doing lots of tidying up to help make the article I created meet Wikipedia standards - I appreciate it.Headhitter (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks!
Thanks for that! It's always nice to be recognized for something, even if it is a bit, well, surreal (and that star really is a nice shade of blue). Before curiosity kills me, though, I have to ask: was there any specific comment (or comments) that you were referring to?

And keep up the good work!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, alright then.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

American Art Therapy Association
Now that the AfD has closed as a "Keep", could you kick in a little effort in expanding the current stub? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Sadly, it was a "per" vote, but at least it was a support nonetheless! Keep up the good work you do. Best. Acalamari 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you! Bearian (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! You deserve it. Acalamari 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology
Yeah. After these personal attacks here and here, I'm pretty much demanding an apology from you or I'm taking the issue up with another admin. A sysop who refers to content-dispute-related changes as vandalism and who calls a user with almost 5000 edits and 0 blocks a "POV-pushing vandal" is breaking Rule #1 of administrator etiquette. Bull dog123 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm… See this post for context, Bearian. There’s a lot water under the bridge with this complainant—maybe you already know that. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for me to say anything new. The record is there for all to see. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the AfDs I put up doesn't mean I don't have the right to put them up. I've never nominated an article or made an edit that did not have some sort of basis in policy or guideline. Adding a "trivia" tag to list of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners was 100% appropriate because the trivia-template refers not only to lists but also sections of articles. The new revised list of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners did away with all that trivia. So how exactly was my edit calling attention to what had to be done vandalism? (Yes I expect an answer to that) That you have had a disagreement with my interpretation of policy in the past doesn't give you the right to call my edits "vandalism" when they are not. And as I have shown on the other talk page, they are not vandalism by any definition of the word. WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE are not policies and should not be used when dealing with long-standing editors such as myself. As for the other comments (if you can call them that) above, I since stopped responding to the persistent harassment, wikihounding, and baiting done by Greg L. All Greg L has been doing for the last few weeks is following me from page to page misrepresenting my intentions and referring to every edit I make as "disruptive." If you want to fall for those misrepresentations, then so be it... but it's not helping solve the problem. Sysops are here to do help solve problems and find compromises... not aggravate the issues by choosing sides and calling people vandals. Anyway, I'll gladly ask another - unaffiliated - admin if your particular language was called for or not. And they can "review my record." So will you retract the "vandal" remark or will you not? Bull dog123  06:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Each of you asked for my comment. I'm posting the identical answer on each talk p. Bearian, I've learned not to use the word vandal or vandalism with respect to any established Wikipedian, no matter how unconstructive their editing. (But it does occur fro time to time in my edit summaries when I use a so called "Friendly" template, and if there's a complaint I apologize.) Even when they are actually doing the sort of thing that we would call  vandalism if done by a outsider, it tends to evoke hostility.  On the underlying dispute, Bulldog, the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many   warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so.    DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk page. And no, I have not received "many warnings" about this. In fact, I have received a grand total of 0 warnings about this. (Check my talk page - any warning I may have got was for accidentally marking a non-minor edit as minor -- this is not the same thing). I will mention though that there is absolutely nothing in policy that says a category or list cannot be removed from an article after surviving XfD discussion if it is unsubstantiated (as it was and still is for numerous such links spammed from List of Jews in sports) or used for WP:POINTy purposes (like the original spam of links was for black Golden Globes). Blocking a user for that would be a direct violation of admin privileges. Bull dog123  16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bearian, please see this thread Bulldog left on my talk page. I think it might indeed be time to just cut to the chase and have an ANI over what to do with this editor. He is clearly a single-purpose account so controversy and conflict seems to follow him everywhere. Do you have better advise? Greg L (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by Bull's indication that he has not received many warnings. That assertion by Bull is simply untrue.  I personally have given him many warnings for disruptive behavior of various stripes.  These warnings have extended to even the recent past.  Bull's continued mis-statement undermine the project -- how can he contribute positively to the project discussions where he continues to make mis-statements, in an effort to create support for his positions?  It has led to more than one editor indication that he has effectively rebutted the assumption of good faith.  And it undermines the project.  Repeated focus on the fact that he makes such mis-statements has not arrested the problem.  Clearly something made of sterner stuff is needed.

I agree with the statements of sysops Bearian and DGG and of editor Greg as to the disruptive nature of this behavior, and support remedial action being taken given Bull's failure to moderate his disruptive behavior despite copious negative community reaction and many warnings. Really -- how much disruption is the community supposed to suffer before sysop will take remedial action to protect it from such long-term disruption and ignoring of consensus. Accepting this behavior only with non-heeded warnings is clearly not sufficient, and the community needs to be protected here. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks, I am just so frustrated that the same SPA editor keeps doing the same things over, and over, and over, and over again. Under sexual harassment law, and that of criminal intent, when a person does something repeatedly, that pattern of behavior can be taken as evidence of design, purpose, modus operandi, or premeditation.  See People v. Murphy, 235 A.D.2d 933, 654 N.Y.S.2d 187 (3rd Dept 1997); online at Findlaw.com.  Bulldog123's contributions seem to have only one purpose here at WP: to challenge or to diminish any reference to lists and categories of black, brown, LGBT, Jewish, Roman Catholic, and other minority peoples. In a few cases, like this edit -- he goes against consensus, the very day after the consensus was fixed!  In fact, I've seen this exact pattern of tendacious and persistent editing before, with another editor who did almost exactly the same thing.  Hmmmm ... that makes me wonder out loud.  This is nothing new.  Go ahead, take a look at his editing for the past four years.  I don't see anything that adds to this project as a whole; just four years of nitpicking, like separating fly manure from ground black pepper.  Anyway, I am sorry for the unprofessional tone.  I'll tell you all what I tell my students: I won't change the grade.  Go appeal to the Dean of Students. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

R. v. Cinous
It's actually a Canadian murder case, and a nice point of law. http://scc.lexum.org/en/2002/2002scc29/2002scc29.html The text so far is a paraphrase of part of that, so far as I can see. Seems to have been a bit contentious. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit War
Hi. Can you have a look at here? Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what is going on there. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted an advisory at Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lacey Banghard
Hello Brian, I got a laugh from your comment at this AfD, and tried to respond in kind. I hope you recover from your blindness soon. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Amy Krouse Rosenthal
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of women who sparked a revolution
Hello Bearian. I was wondering, based on the closing comments for this AFD, if you actually read the discussion, which had gone on for two and a half weeks. I realize it is really long and probably somewhat frustrating, as far as AFDs go, but your two-sentences only noted that it had taken a long time and then it addressed a single non-issue that was discussed as a must-do if the article were to be kept. I'd like to note that I wasn't surprised by a keep close, considering the numbers, but I did expect the closing admin to show some respect for the participants and actually give not only some indication that they weighed arguments, but that they actually read the discussion. So, if you don't mind, clarification on that point would be appreciated. Lara 12:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read it. I hope that I addressed your concerns with my rule-breaking post scriptum. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate it. Lara  16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
This is to inform you that there is an AN/I in which I have quoted you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the courtesy. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump
No prob. They were just minor edits. I haven't seen you at any of the Meetups I've been to since that first picnic where we met. Do you ever go to them any more? Nightscream (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi this is a project for one of my classes. The wrtc major at JMU is my page that I am making for a project that is due in a week. Please do not touch it; I'm getting graded on it so in three weeks you can do whatever you want to it but until then please dont change it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeefstathios (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Gemma Mewse
It's back - is there any difference here? - No new references. Acabashi (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is moot. If it's created in another 6 to 8 months, we can take a look at it again. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)