User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOct2008

List of academic disciplines
May I ask why you placed a protection on the article to restrict editing to administrators only?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a million reverts that takes place in Wikipedia between registered editors, so why single this one out? I just want to understand the process. Your reply had not really answered my question.
 * As it happens the extensive edit last night was a result of over a week of deliberation off line, and is not final, as well as lacking in citations. The intent is to edit in correlation the list section and the main article for military science to present a more coherent source of reference--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At this stage I don't see a better way of including the diverse research and development activities, and studies commonly grouped under the 19th century's Military Science. If you have better ideas, please tell me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce
Thanks for the heads-up that you tagged it; I can deal with the template. That also got me looking at the article logs, and this isn't the first time an account named for the Chamber has gone creating an article. I think G11 may be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection
Hi Bearian

I wonder if you would mind keeping an eye on Resurrection, please? User:Born Immortal and User:Fist of Steel have been attacking this page with their own POV and making threats. I think they are just a couple of adolescents, and will go away after a day or two, but would you mind watching the article? Thanks. Feel free to pass this on to any other admins online. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Immortality
Hello there, I couldn't help overhearing the problems described above at Resurrection. Unfortunately the same group of people appear to post at Immortality too. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting that page, the vandals are not only persistent and threatening but boorish. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't say better ;D Thank you ! Rosenknospe (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Nefbmn
Thank you for blocking this user. It is obvious that there are serious issues with that user. However, I need to point out that User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese (the forerunner to User:Nefbmn) can still be used to create new user accounts so its block needs to be revised too. Otherwise, we might see more abuse. By the way, please don't mention this at ANI before revising the block; we don't need to give the user in question any more excuses to complain. 122.109.98.33 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr.122.109.98.33, or should I say David873? I don't know what kind of bad blood existed between you and Nefbmn but let's me just say this out loud and clear to you... DO NOT REVERT MY PAGE EVEN IF IT WAS VANDALIZED BY HIM OR HIS LIKES, EVER AGAIN! It's not that I don't appreciate your help but it was clearly not needed then as I had things under control, period. The last thing I want is for him to label me as a sockpuppet, which of course I am not. Another thing is... learn to behave and respect others here on wikipedia! --Dave1185 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again!
NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan gossip
If you read the talk page, I'm not arguing that the New York Post isn't a reliable source -- it is without any doubt. This item is from the *gossip page* of the New York Post. That isn't a reliable source for a BLP. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas
I have tried to be patient and reasonable, but RafaelGarcia is consistently reverting and undoing my edits to the Clarence Thomas article. Several users have asked that the information he had added be reduced. I have refrained from deleting any of it, and I am only adding a single paragraph of refutation to the claims made by Hill. Yet he keeps moving it and making other inappropriate and unwarranted changes. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I have deleted nothing; I simply moved all the info so that the info against the accusers was all together. Also, Wallamoose doesn't know how to cite properly. He cites to a huge index of tons of testimony instead of citing to individual testimony PDFs. In addition, he's making NPOV edits trying to tell readers the significance of things; that is unsupported by the text. Also, he's made statements unsupported by citations.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is now deleting citations for no reason; documents that are there or are clearly cited are being replaced with fact tags wantonly.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose obviously needs to be blocked from editing. He rampages through Wikipedia making nothing but partisan edits. He copies info from other websites wholesale; he's done so with Barney Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests) and his first edits to Clarence Thomas were similar. Pretty much any article he touches, he causes conflict (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gwen_Ifill). When he noticed citations to a book about Justice Blackmun by reporter Greenhouse, he rushed to look up articles about her to smear her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Linda_Greenhouse). He thinks Bill O'Reilly is a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests). He also refuses to learn the most basic formatting and protocol rules, which creates work for all of us. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RafaelGarcia's bad citations have been tagged for a long time. He has already been reprimanded for removing my citations and asked (again) to fix his (the ones I appropriately tagged specifically and that were already noted on the talk page and with a tag above the citations on the bottom of the article page). The RfC on the Thomas page and all of the dicussions have supported adding the information (only a single paragraph so far) of sourced material I included. It's not biased at all and does little to balance the grotesque abundance of partisan edits RafaelGarcia has put into the article despite repeated pleadings from multiple editors to cut this section down and balance it. In fact I left the article alone for a long time because I was sick of the edit war, but it's time that these issues are addressed and that RafaelGarcia's abuse be stopped. He removed my ref tags (00:46) removed my text completely (00:48) and removed the unbalanced tag (1:02) without consulting anyone else or explaining why on the talk page. After my complaints to administrators he has now put that he decided the section was balanced since he couldn't get rid of the single paragraph I had added. He needs to be banned and his abuse stopped (Wallamoose (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I haven't made a single bad citation, (I almost always use just books) and I checked all the citations you tagged the other day, and they were all fine. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Wallamoose likes fact-tagging stuff that doesn't have an online link if he disagrees with it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Law enforcement officer
Thank you for the message. MOOOOOPS (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mint Chocolate Chip

 * Your Userbox says your favorite flavor of ice cream is "Mint Chocolate Chip"...Me TO!!!...Sorry, but I just had to share that... The Scythian 04:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Response
Well it just got deleted, so it's clearly not notable. HollyHuntaway (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, which is what was said in the Prod. That the notability is unclear.. HollyHuntaway (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Galaxy (video game)
Actually, you didn't remove the PROD tag. You removed the tag (which just acts as an endorsement and left the actual PROD tag.  I'd be happy to restore the article though, if you wish. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Bearian, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral standapoint? No, thanks!
Dear Berian, I wonder how it takes four months or more to delete a page that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards since its very beginning. I am referring to Neuropsychophysiology and its author Michele Trimarchi. These pages are clearly submitting an original research based on self-reference: no neutral standpoint, indeed! They proposed something similar to it.wikipedia and underwent a severe public discussion ended with their prompt disappearing, since they wanted all the world over to know about such original theory, in a sort of new age (other than scientific) attempt to gain visibility, legitimation and authority to keep on working in a pseudo-scientific field. Serependity'47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.231.188 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

City of Chicago v. Morales
The page could really use the template Infobox SCOTUS case. I know it is a pain in the ass to fill out. I might get to it later if I have time. I don't think it needs the other two infoboxes though. --Eastlaw (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Please respond to the RFC on Clarence Thomas. Wallamoose and other partisans are trying to decimate the section on Anita Hill and the other women who accused Thomas of sexual misconduct. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

TMWWBQ
Can you stop by The Man Who Would Be Queen? Our arduous but civil road to consensus is suddenly facing some challenges. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have been more clear. Can you or another disinterested editor step in and assist with the revert war, as well as the change in tone on the talk page? Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article on IOLTA Accounts
Personally, I think IOLTA is inappropriate, but characterizing the operation of an IOLTA account as a violation of Rule 1.15 is inappropriate. The Bar does not regard it as such, and the Supreme Court has rejected the constitutional challenge.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose
It's getting difficult to work with this guy. He's even insulting you now. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL Too funny.  Check out his post yesterday on the ACORN discussion board:  of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008   And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there.  And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist.
 * It's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice, and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.  I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left the page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem).  In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.  (Wallamoose (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Re: Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar, it's nice to be appreciated. Useight (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, Bearian, go on!
Hi, Bearian, thank you for tagging the page on Neuropsychophysiology, waiting for highly improbable adjustments according to the Wiki spirit. The next action to take is to do quickly the same with the page of Michele Trimarchi, that is clearly a naif attempt to let his private, "roaring" curriculum circulate abroad (since in Italy it was promptly deleted). Bye. Serependity'47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.236.66 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
I was blocked briefly by Gwen Gale and Ncmvocalist for an edit I made to Clarence Thomas's talk page last month. I had to remove the offending comment. Anyway, I think that if the Clarence Thomas article's length is doubled or so, then the confirmation section can't really be said to be of excess length, could it? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to email you something. Please email me and then I will tell you my university email if you like. Rafael1328 at yahoo dot com. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Please comment briefly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Book_Banning Right now, the article only says she inquired as to censoring books, without even saying why. That's oversanitizing the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Bearian, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. I greatly appreciate the trust you have in my request. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Behavior
Yo. User Gwen Gale has been following me around, enforcing rules against me but not Wallamoose. She threatened to ban me for a week if I posted to his talk page, but didn't do anything to Wallamoose just yesterday when he posted on my talk page, despite her also warning him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive483#User:RafaelRGarcia_and_User:Wallamoose. Should everyone on Wikipedia start running in packs based on ideology? This is disgusting. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD nomination using criteria G1
Hi there. I noticed that you tagged the article Pipi corkscrew as speedy deletion per G1. Please remember that G1 is only supposed to be used for articles that are solely consist of things like: "ASHASJKASJDJKASDJKASD" - e.g, something that you cannot read. While that above article certainly was a candidate for speedy deletion, a G3 criteria (pure vandalism) or G10 (attack page) would have been a better tag.

Thanks for your help in patrolling new pages though; it is very much appreciated! NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to work on the areas indentified by the opposers. Along those lines, if you could jot me a line or two about the manner in which I failed your standards, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

London Underground Main Line Stock
Hey, many thanks for the message. The section is nowhere near complete, I haven't had much time to write any more, and the story in itself is quite complex. Its certainly on my to do list to expand the artical. Maybe a request could be put at the appropriate task force page? Will try and do something soon! Thanks for the nudge tho :P :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutrageousBenedict (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
I created a compromise variant of the section about the nomination. May I ask you to comment on it? Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please do. Can you comment on the WSJ investigative reporters' book? I think its info should be placed close to or in the nomination section, because the reporters concluded Thomas lied under oath, and it also brings up Thomas's video rental records of pornography. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for csd tagging Logan goulette. You got there just before me :) and I did revert bak to another vandal version by acident. Thanks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmm... What do you mean whos there?  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh its a joke? :P *looks again at talk page*  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Iv really confused myself now by mixing two people and conversations together :P. Still dont get the messages though :) Probably just e being blind or sleepy  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ohhh :) Hugh Carey who?  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol thanks for the joke :p It made me laugh and also its good to know that people do read the templates on talk pages! :) Thanks again!.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok now my go. Knock Knock!  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's there? Bearian (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kanga.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kanga who? Bearian (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nooo! Kanga Roo! :P  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Lions vandalism guard request
Hi You're an administrator right? Well I've noticed that the Detroit Lions article has been vandalized almost daily this NFL season. I strongly believe that it needs a high level of vandalism protection (I don't know what the exact term is) because the Lions haven't won a game yet this season. The vandalism on it is out of control and needs to be stopped. Thanks for your time. Please send your response to my talk pageTomCat4680 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearian. It's really not a huge deal, but two admins had already declined to protect this on RFPP, as you saw. This user admin-shopped until he found what he was looking for. I know you probably didn't see the RFPP requests before you acted, so I'm going to leave a note on his talk page as a gentle reminder that this is frowned upon, if you don't mind. Tan   &#124;   39  18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Looks like he went to RFPP after he came to you. A case of disconnected requests, that's all. No worries, borderline case anyways - carry on. Tan   &#124;   39  19:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

American people of the United States
You added a tag questioning the article's neutrality. Please explain the lack of neutrality and contribute to the article if necessary to help resolve whatever the issue(s) may be. Thank you. M5891 (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me
Can you help me to delete my article Top Earning Stars in Pinoy Showbiz, because I found out that my reference was just making up stories and information. And I'm not that really familiar in deleting articles, Thank You.

--Geniusdream (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

July Systems
I've attempted to rewrite the content in a neutral manner. Please advise. For references, there's a fair amount of press on July Systems. Do I link to those? (talk)

Am removing all TMs from the brandname. Will take care of the rest. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Removed all 'TM's from the Mi suite referred to in the article. Article made more neutral. New press releases and blog references added. (talk)

My edits
I check sources, that is all. I only remove ethnicities if its not backed up by a source. Thats the whole point of wiki.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:AFD
Sounds good. And thanks for linking those really esoteric pages. :P Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD, Vienna fingers
Could I ask of you to review the arguments posted? To my understanding, there's one extensive arguer for it - but his arguments seem to be comprised of variations of "you can find a lot of Google hits." One arguer amplified, and a few said they agree without amplifying. But none of them provided the context of these hits when asked, with the exception of "it was mentioned in Odd Couple in the '60s."

If I may, here's the context I saw when looking at the results. Out of the first hundred hits in the famous "Google news search," one is a headline - a passing pun on the Austrian keyboardists the article is about. One mentions it as being an item sold in a Vienna MD grocery store. One is a reference to their packaging. Two list their calories. 6 mention it as being a food item served or eaten. 8 refer to it as a favorite food. 14 are promotional releases for new entries in the product line. 27 are articles on Nabisco which include them in a list of products. 40 are coupon mentions or grocery store sale ads. And one is undeterminable from the abstract (it's a subscription).

I may be mischaracterizing the decision process - but I thought consensus was meant to imply "preponderance of unrebutted logic," as in a debate, rather than "preponderance of votes." (Nor "preponderance of words," heaven forfend.) It's certainly possible that my presumptions and/or logic were in error - if you feel the same way after reviewing, would you mind explaining what the deciding factors were? I'm very much in the learning stage. arimareiji (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you wouldn't be using yourself as a source for why they're notable, so I'm even more confused now... what were the deciding factors in the arguments? Sorry, I'm often slow to catch on. arimareiji (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it helps explain, I guess I'm confused about what the definition of notability is if it includes Vienna fingers. My definition would include Ritz crackers, Moon Pies, Trojans, Soap on a Rope, Slinky - products which have a lot of cultural references or are relatively unique. But that doesn't mean Vienna fingers don't meet a criterion I haven't thought of or am not aware of. arimareiji (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Listed at DRV per your advice: ==Deletion review for Vienna_fingers==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vienna_fingers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. arimareiji (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude, but I am in the process of cleaning up the article, which included getting the proper spelling of the subject: Vienna Fingers (Vienna fingers refers to Austrian hands). I've brought in new information and proper references.  I think the article (the stub, really) works well now -- if you have time, feel free to check it out.  Cheers on your excellent AfD closing call! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

-

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 research and I couldn't find any notability (I am a psychologist with clinical and academic ground) neither in Italian nor in international literature. Furthermore, they didn't answer your invitation to fix the articles and didn't respect the deadlines you proposed. Thank you for your attention. PernillaPthor

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 research and I couldn't find any notability (I am a psychologist with clinical and academic ground) neither in Italian nor in international literature. Furthermore, they didn't answer your invitation to fix the articles and didn't respect the deadlines you proposed. Thank you for your attention. PernillaPthor