Jump to content

User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJUneJuly2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I know I misspelled June.

Bureaucratship

[edit]

Bearian, I've always seen you being helpful in various ways and I honestly believe that you would make a good bureaucrat. Since you already have lots of experience in different areas of Wikipedia for many years, I think that it will be great if we all could have an extra bureaucrat like you. Although it's your choice, but do think about it. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kindly. Right now, I am very busy in the real world, so would have to decline this time. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

[edit]

Hello Bearian

[edit]

Hello Bearian and thank you for your welcoming words. I have been predominantly collaborating on the Greek Wikipedia and have only one entry on the American WP, <Fotos Politis>, a very important Greek stage director in the first part of the 20th century. Though Greek, I grew up in Manhattan and attended Power Memorial Academy and Columbia College class of 58. Take care --Bastias (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BULaw

[edit]

I've blocked for copyvios and username. I've declined your speedy and reverted and then done a revdel. Takes it back to a tagged for improvement state. The beggar might start talking now... Peridon (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Ernst

[edit]

Thank you for your comment on talk:Joni Ernst. Would you be willing to help maintain the content under dispute at the article itself?CFredkin (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sort of busy, but I have put the article on my watch list. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

[edit]

Bearian, I saw that you're on Wikibreak. As a courtesy notice, I wanted to let you know that you were mentioned on ANI here . (I didn't initiate this and have nothing to do with this ). You may want to respond when you get a moment. Kosh Vorlon   11:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy! Bearian (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

[edit]

Howdy, I've been informed that I should come here to request to have a Wikipedia block lifted. I googled around for how to fix the problem and was under the impression that these folks could help; if they can, they haven't. The folks over there told me to ask you to reconsider the block instead. Per this article I came across, it seems as though the idea of deleting *block* notices is debatable amongst even well-versed users, but I did find direct references in wikipedia policy stating that the removal of a warning from a user's talk page is permitted. So, I'd like to ask you to reconsider the one month block you've placed on the IP address in question. Thanks. Meteoritekid (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings is ok. Removal of block notices is not the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That debate was left ~unresolved per the ANI page (link above) and other much more experienced users than I. You voiced the same opinion there, and the claim still lacks any citation. Meteoritekid (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After all that, I still don't understand what you want me to do, exactly. I have often reconsidered long blocks, and changed them to much shorter, say an indef or 3-month block to a 31-hour block. See my logs for evidence thereof. If you tell me the exact IP, I will consider it. However, I would not normally erase a block notice, unless it was clearly my own error. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC) ... Never mind, I figured it out. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I came here just because I read ANI and saw the discussion about this there. My understanding is that there is no consensus at all about whether removing a block notice is allowed. There looks to be a discussion currently ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Can_block_notices_be_removed_while_the_user_is_still_blocked? on the subject. That discussion refers to an RFC back in 2012 that decided that people can't remove block notices, but it sounds like that RFC was lightly attended and didn't actually reach a strong consensus. Discussions both before and after that RFC also haven't reached a consensus as far as I know. For instance, the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive258#Can_editors_remove_block_notices_from_their_talk_pages and the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices? both seem to have come to no conclusion. So I don't think Panda is right in saying that block notices can't be removed. Instead it seems to be an unresolved question that is currently under discussion. However, that being said, I don't think you should remove a block message (or any notice, for that matter) from another user's talk page, as Meteoritekid seems to have done. Also, removing other sorts of warnings from your own talk page definitely is allowed, so if the block of the IP was just over removing the warning, then the block was not appropriate. Calathan (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the consensus might be, I have unblocked the IP address, thus the immediate problem is resolved. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

[edit]

Bearian, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New England Wikimedians summer events!

[edit]
Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Page Ong Kean Swan and its creator, Garydog Comment

[edit]

I have reported both the page and its creator to administrators. They have removed about 10 templates today (about 6 of them after a final warning). There's no point in battling him since both he and the page will be gone soon. DJAMP4444 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ong Kean Swan with my rationale. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlos Bulosan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Pleasant Cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George Music Festival

[edit]

It does not look as if the deletion of the Lake George Music Festival article has been very controversial, maybe it is too early yet since it has only been at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake George Music Festival since 21 May. --Bejnar (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bearian (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

[edit]

law
Thank you for quality articles and contributions to articles concerning law, such as Alcohol laws of New Jersey, for articles rescued from deletion, for factual articles on people you know and an informative infobox of yourself, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 507th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hungarian Turanism article and User:Maghasito

[edit]

USer:Maghasito try to spread of pseudo science, the so-called Hungarian Turanism , which is now a politically motivated chauvinist pseudo-science from the 19th century and a core agenda of far right Jobbik party and ww2 nazi Arrow Cross Party . There are not a single contemporary scholar (academics university professors) linguistics, historian population geneticist on this planet, who support that fantasy theory. Wikikpedia is a free encyclopedia, however it is not the place of the popularization of pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsenses. The best option would be the permanent ban of Maghasito. Thank you!--Dosemark (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tagged it for POV. I do not have the power to ban that user myself. Please go to WP:AN/I if you wish to raise this issue. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Dosemark has been permanently blocked. Be careful what you ask for! Bearian (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

[edit]

User:I eat my shiznit

[edit]

Your comment about waiting till he edited notwithstanding, I have blocked the account indefinitely as it's basically "I eat my shit" with the common practice of inserting "izn" into the first syllable of any taboo word to avoid censure for using it. Therefore it was hard-blockable on sight. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., thanks; I'd not heard of that slang usage. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HelMSIC

[edit]

Hello, thanks for prod of HelMSIC. First I tagged it for CSD, because it seems to be non-notable organization but you denied CSD. I'm fine with prod if you think prod suits more than CSD. Thank you. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination)

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination). Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

John Steward (assemblyman) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chautauqua County
Ruben Grijalva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Laura Black

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

[edit]
Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society

[edit]

Respected sir

some data has been deleted from the article. is it possible to get back. and modify as per your requirement. Awards and achievements section in our article..we have some photographs is it possible to use it as a reference. i will upload it on wikimedia. we have some new paper reference but in our language.

thanks and Regards V S Dongre. Vsdongre (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Vsdongre: You need to be aware that information can only go into the article if it is referenced. We require sourcing from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. IN addition, the article has been criticised, quite reasonably in its original form, as being unduly promotional. Material returned to the article must be neutral. Think "Dull" and you have it, pretty much.
You should be aware that the article is currently being discussed for deletion. Returning a great deal of prior information to it would prejudice the article's ability to survive that discussion. I accepted the draft article at WP:AFC in the knowledge that the community would edit it severely to bring it into line with our standards. This is how WIkipedia works.
None of the information that has been removed is lost. You may find it i the "View history" tab. But I implore you to consider with care what you wish to reinstate. Take advice. Consider WP:Mentoring to learn more of the ways of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsdongre, "No." There's an old American parable about the bird, the cow, and the cat. I suggest you learn it. Bearian (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

[edit]

Princess Leia

[edit]

Can you add simultaneous indefinite pending-changes protection? Without interfering the semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I chose not to do so; it's a bit of an overkill, sort of like destroying Alderaan to test-drive the Death Star. Please feel free to go back to WP:RFPP to request that. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ease semi-protection to three months and add indefinite PC protection? Or just lower to indefinite PC? --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Bottolfsen

[edit]

I think I may have come to this nice person's rescue just in time; could you take another look, please? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

william m windsor

[edit]

I am not very knowledgeable of how to use wikipedia but I would like to tell you that William M. Windsor is truly pumping himself up to be some sort of well known person such as larry klayman. He is engaged in a lawsuit against 20 or more people in regards to liibel and slander and defamation yet he has been harassing people in person and also online using the resources of Alcatraz media. See lawlessamerica.org there are some links there to show you how. my opinion is that he is not notable enough to have a history here on wiki. He has actually sued facebook recently. He does not want any of these crazy lawsuits to be known about in the open because it does not do well for him. that is all. You can email if need be because I have no clue how to use this for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seandfleming (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those lawsuits have been reported in the mainstream (or "lamesteam") media or an appellate court, he does not rank as notable. See WP:42. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Palashi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The name Palashi is derived from the red flower ''[[Butea]]'' ([[Bengali language|Bengali]]: পলাশ ''Pôlash'' - ''Butea frondosa'' or ''Butea monosperma''; the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Barnstar recipient)

[edit]

Thanks! Unexpected, but very much appreciated!! (Certainly a VAST improvement on the average reaction (i.e. none) to my edits.) Never underestimate the value of good manners - it might not do you as much good as you might wish, but it's most unlikely to elicit harm, and at a minimum will generally elicit a smile. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

[edit]
Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
For improving the Wikipedia project !! M.Karelin (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jetson

[edit]

Hey there Bearian. We last spoke after I'd reported Jetson2012 to AIV. He appears to have returned as Jetson2014, if you agree, hit 'em with the sloppy mop water! A good day to you sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a new report at WP:AIV or WP:SPI. I'm holding off for now with the mop. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I expect not to have time to investigate this for a few days, due to the upcoming long weekend away. Bearian (talk)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

[edit]

Mikeis1996

[edit]

Your comment on the AIV notwithstanding, I blocked him anyway per this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the humor in this. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kinds Of Long Term Makeup Held For Ladies Today‎

[edit]

Word salad? I beg to differ. Salad can be consumed. Seriously, I would have speedied this had I been able to think of an appropriate tag.TheLongTone (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian self-determination

[edit]

Hi, I notice that you tagged this page for a merge, but you didn't carry out the rest of the merge proposal process. Do you mind if I ask why? Also, why do you think this page should be merged rather than deleted? There seems to be no new information on the page, and since it is such a tiny page, there doesn't seem to be any point in merging what little is there. Benboy00 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benboy00, my belief (and my standard operating procedure) is not to tag an article for merger, and also then to perform the merger itself, unless I am feeling especially bold or it involves a copyright violation. I actually like to get others' reasonable opinions. In this particular case, I think this stub should be merged because the issue of self-determination is so closely tied to the odd legal status of the Palestinian Authority, and due to the current state of law (or, rather, lawlessness) in that territory. A merger, rather than a deletion, retains the editing history of the article's creators in a relatively accessible place, and allows for easy re-creation if an error is made. A redirect is a cheap and easy way to accomplish my technical goals. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian, maybe you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say complete the merge, as doing so would be against policy and would not be constructive. I said "carry out the rest of the merge proposal process". The process is designed to foster discussion on the merge, and notify users of the proposal. Simply adding a merge tag to the source article is not enough. If you are not familiar with the process, please read more here, and also note that a key step is giving a reason for the merge. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I started a discussion on Talk:Palestinian self-determination, but copying what I wrote here. I know of the process; I just didn't think it was necessary in every case. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors

[edit]

You may be interested in this topic. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irish Food Guide

[edit]

You tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irish Food Guide as {{under construction}} in November 2013. I just wanted to remind you about the article in case you were considering improving it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mersini-Houghton

[edit]

Since you participated in the deletion discussion of this article, and since you are an administrator, I am seeking your help in dealing with a problem which I see as vandalism. During the time when deletion discussions were taking place, I noticed problems with the existing references; often, they did not mention Mersini-Houghton's name; one reference was to a bookstore (Amazon). So I revamped the article, with reliable sources with inline easy-to-check citations, removed the unsourced speculation as per biographical article rules. The article was closed as no consensus. But user Holybeef seems to have a POV-pushing agenda of removing any article on Laura Mersini-Houghton. When the article was revamped to a much improved version Holybeef reverted it here and again here back to the same problematic poorly referenced version that Holybeef wanted to delete. Further, on the Houghton talk page, then Holybeef wrote above that s/he doesn't want anybody else to edit the problematic version while he tries to get the closure decision reversed by writing Do not edit the article until the revision is completed. My sense is this behavior is disruptive, possibly an academic seeking to discount another academic, but I am in a position where if I try to revert the reverts, it will look like (or be) edit-warring, so I am looking for guidance here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I am discussing it with the other editor at User_talk:Holybeef#Laura_Mersini-Houghton. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also tidied up the article, but it still needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article is under relist revision ("to be re-listed") for deletion discussion because closing seemed premature due to article's numerous issues as seen by countless tags for years. This means numerous editors had seen this article as problematic to say the least. Not enough time has passed for even a fraction of those editors to familiarize themselves with delete nominations. Note also that user:Tomwsulcer is a rather nervous proponent of keeping the article, so much so that, immediately after the delete nomination, he attempted to forge a major overhaul without any discussion whatsoever. Note that disputed articles are not subject to WP:BOLD by any stretch of imagination. He repeated his suspicious deed immediately after the closing too. His edit is biased at best since it tries to portray the person the article is about as notable despite this person not meeting any academic notability criteria but being just an average researcher instead, as noted by several editors during the delete nomination's first discussion. Furthermore, his proposed intro paragraph would want you to believe that the claimed notability is in her "proposing a controversial theory" which however is nonsense: there are thousands of theories and all are controversial until proven correct. That's just one issue with his "improvements" but there are too many issues to list here. In summary: his article is basically a hand waving and POV, not to mention clear errors such as her claims: no-black-holes (the credit for which goes to Stephen Hawking rather than the person the article is about), and the dark flow (recently shown by a 175-strong Planck satellite mission collaboration to be a ghost). See article's talk page for details. Thanks for trying though, it's always refreshing to see a lawyer such as yourself trying to give his/her input on science. Not appreciated, but refreshing nonetheless. Holybeef (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs that close are always subject to WP:BOLD. While the point of AfD is not to fix nor to rescue articles, it happens frequently. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to win an intellectual argument. For what it's worth, User:Holybeef, I am a scientist: I graduated from The Bronx High School of Science and had a 710 average on my science Achievement exams; I conducted original research as an undergraduate on Planaria and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, took a significant number of credits in biology, chemistry, and physics, and represented my college four times on the Science & Technology Committee of the ECOSOC of the Harvard Model United Nations; I was a volunteer emergency medical technician for the New Paltz Rescue Squad; in my mid-twenties, I submitted several papers on physics to leading peer-reviewed journals, two of which were reviewed personally by Ralph Asher Alpher (who recommended against their publication, sadly); I was a managing editor of the first issue of the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology in law school, during which I completed three patent law courses; and I have created or worked on many "STEM fields" articles here at Wikipedia. Oh, yes, I am a lawyer, too. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read such nonsense. You seem unsatisfied with being a lawyer (meaning you failed as one), and you just said you failed miserably trying to become a scientist, also. I do sympathize, but you shouldn't project your life failures onto Wikipedia. Holybeef (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

[edit]

First, thank you for recent protection of Guardians of the Galaxy (film). The film is due out on July 31 and these types of high-profile films typically attract a lot vandalism / unconstructive edits around the time of release and are usually protected but I was wondering if it wouldn't be more prudent to just prolong the protection now. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike alien invaders, I don't do pre-emptive strikes. I'll strongly consider extending it in two weeks. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Rooney. 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) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

[edit]

Clyde Lewis

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clyde_Lewis

hi - there is chat at blp board - please do not simply replace disputed content without contributing any talk chat at all - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're only allowed to remove stuff from a BLP if it's disputed and unsourced. If it's simply disputed, then you're required to follow WP:BRD. You were bold and removed it, it was added back ... you're not permitted to re-remove it until such discussion is complete. Those are the rules you agreed to the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I feel like I'm just asking for drama, which I sincerely do not want, but I have to cite WP:BRD-NOT that states BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.. As far as I can tell, that's been in this essay since at least 2012. — MusikAnimal talk 14:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you an admin?

[edit]

you an admin matey? Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! But about to log off. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are supposed to follow rules - log off and don't come back mate - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People have been blocked for less. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your note on User:Bearian's talk page

[edit]

{Pasted from another talk page.} You wrote:

Admins are supposed to follow rules - log off and don't come back mate -

So are regular users of Wikipedia. No personal attacks is one of them . Kosh Vorlon   16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft "User:Asdklf;/Verbal Jint"

[edit]

Thank you for saving my draft from speedy deletion. I believe it is a valid draft and can stand on its own merit. Hopefully it will emerge as a valuable article as well. Thank you for your help Asdklf; (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at [[User talk:Qwertyus#National Computerization Agency|Qwertyus's talk page]].
Message added 09:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

64.134.162.154 block reduced to 31 hours

[edit]

I've changed the block settings for 64.134.162.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to 31 hours. You cannot block for a year with no relevant editing history to support that decision. The WHOIS report suggests the IP is a public WiFi hotspot. The concerned user may have moved on to another coffee shop and is now editing from a different IP. Following this logic, your block is then accomplishing nothing more than shutting out potentially constructive users for an entire 365 days. Furthermore, IPs cannot be considered vandalism-only accounts. They are not accounts. Vandalism-only implies a hard, indefinite block. We don't do that to IPs. I know you mean well, Brian, but you must exert better judgement with the block tool. This is unacceptable, in my opinion. I can't reiterate enough that blocking is a preventive measure, not punitive. We're not punishing users, we're protecting the wiki from further disruption. — MusikAnimal talk 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate it if you could explain the rationale behind the following blocks: [1] [2] [3] [4] — MusikAnimal talk 19:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not sure that I agree with your underlying premise (that IPs are not accounts for the purpose of blocking, but are unregistered accounts that are given more leeway than those people with registered accounts), but O.K. here goes:
  1. This one is a racist, whom I just won't tolerate, period. The racism is so subtle as almost to be hidden. In the 13 years this website has existed, the only edits from that IP address were all racist. The First Amendment does not apply to private fora such as Wikipedia.
  2. This one had been warned many times for ongoing vandalism, which was also reported at AIV. There is plenty of evidence that only one or more vandals were using this IP address.
  3. This was my error as I did not look back far enough in the contributions some of them were constructive probably from other users using it as a sandbox, so I am changing that block to 24 hours from now.
  4. This block was 31 hours, and was perfectly valid. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Sorry if I seem to come off aggressive. I wish only to offer my constructive criticism of your administrative actions. We have spoke numerous times off-wiki about this, this is my on-wiki critique. I simply don't think you're being fair. I believe you may not distinguish punitive and preventive action. On Wikipedia we do the latter. With block (1) above I do not think you considered prior editing history when choosing the length of the block, you chose the length of the block based solely off the edit themselves. This user was properly warned, BLP issues are very serious, so a block is definitely warranted. But not a year... that seems awfully punitive. Yes, this user has made nothing but racist edits since Wikipedia first came about, but there were only three edits total, and they all were made within the same 70 minutes. I fail to understand how a year is a justifiable length. I would like to again ask you to review WP:IPBLENGTH. As for labeling it as vandalism-only, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account, which clearly states this cannot be applied to IPs. That is not a matter of opinion, I'm afraid.
The rest of the blocks I mentioned I may not agree with, but that boils down solely to my opinion and my interpretation of the accepted norm. Labeling IPs as WP:NOTHERE may also be inappropriate. Similar to vandalism-only, by applying this label you're concluding that the "account" is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, which we can't conclude since it's not an account, and we don't know for sure that the IP will forever belong to same household and the individuals that live there.
Such is my interpretation of the blocking policy. I do think you deviate from this in some degree, but nonetheless I still respect your judgement and merely ask you consider my critique – perhaps seek the opinion of other administrators who regularly partake in anti-vandal efforts. Thank you for your understanding. — MusikAnimal talk 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, and thank you both for the intervention against 64.134.162.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 64.134.171.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), he has some kind of personal animosity against me for previously reporting him for vandalism and sock puppetry and thinks he is settling some score by launching his racially derogatory personal attacks. i had hoped that those derogatory messages and edit summaries would be deleted per RD2 as was done in this case 64.134.127.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) by a patrolling admin. Is this something you would be able to do? or is there something else i need to do to have those messages redacted? thank you, Pvpoodle (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvpoodle: I may have to disagree that much of the edits should be redacted. They're all inappropriate, sure, but not grossly offensive, in my opinion. With my anti-vandal efforts, I can't count how many edits were attacks directed at me! Just ignore their attempts to anger you, no one is taking the edit summaries seriously. I did remove one edit I found to be WP:RD2 material. Beyond that you may wish to seek another admin's judgement. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: i will defer to your judgement. although i assume this is some kind of derogatory chinese word spelled out phonetically in english. i can only imagine the kind of horror stories you must have from fighting trolls. i have been doing my best to show restraint and not taking the bait and giving him a rise out of this, but random drive-by attacks over the better period of a month is challenging to say the least. i can only assume that his being a Little Emperor magically confers him with the right to trample on other's rights and continually harass anyone who reports him for trying to use wiki to spread his propaganda. thanks again for your help and cheers to you too.
@Bearian: apologies for hijacking your talk page ;) Pvpoodle (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall indef blocking an IP address in the past year or so - since Musik pointed out a past error of mine. However, long blocks of IP adddresses might be warranted: "However, if an IP address has been used only or mostly for vandalism over a long period of time, it is often included in Category:IP addresses used for vandalism. These IP addresses may be subject to very long blocks, up to a year and occasionally even longer, but are almost never blocked indefinitely." -- Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account ("This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. It is intended to supplement or clarify some other guidance or process. This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page.") That having been said, my "default" block time period has been 31 hours for run of the mill idiotic vandalism and 3 months for obvious racist/sexist/classist/homophobic vandalism ("Homophobia is the little bother of sexism" - Dan Savage). I'll take a look again and consider reducing the lengths of the longer blocks. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave with one reiteration... that the notice atop WP:VOA does not justify you labeling IPs as accounts. IPs are by definition not accounts – even static IPs. You could write on my userpage that I am tartar sauce because the background is white. As much as you might believe I'm tartar sauce, I am not, and claiming me to be doesn't make any sense. That be so, it's simple mislabeling that doesn't cause any real harm. Treating IPs as accounts does cause real harm, and that is the crucial difference. Best — MusikAnimal talk 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation: WikiProject Autism

[edit]

Greetings! Since I found your name on the Notice board for autism-related topics, I figured you might be interested in the recently created WikiProject Autism. Muffinator (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism
Wikipedia adsfile info – #251

FYI

[edit]

I opened an SPI related to Jeju outer port and The dredging works for outer wall quay of Pyeongtaek (Asan) Port (3rd and 4th berth). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Lin (tennis)

[edit]

Hello,

I created an article, "Zhu Lin (tennis)" but the article was deleted, as Zhu had failed to meet any of the Tennis Notability Standards at the time. However, she has recently appeared in the main draw of the 2014 Jiangxi International Women's Tennis Open, which is a WTA 125K event. Does her appearance in the tournament now meet the "WTA main draw" standard for the Tennis Notability Standards? If so, can we restore the page I created?

Thank you, Zane Nariman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zane Nariman (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it, but it may take more than 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

[edit]

Pizza

[edit]

I'd like to order a large pepperoni pizza to go, please. Erik L'Ensle :) (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bearian is gone for four days, it probably won't arrive in 30 minutes or less. Muffinator (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, guys. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random

[edit]

Hey, Bearian, you edited this article once recently, so you might appreciate that this somewhat subtle vandalism fooled us all for 5 + years: [5].--Milowent • hasspoken 13:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, I did not catch that. Well, a short block and longer semi-protection may be needed. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the craziest thing in the article is that the actual author of the book series (the nephew of the original author) even apparently repeated the hoax to a reporter once. I question whether the reporter of that article made up the interview, but its attributed to him.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am again, I deeply apologize for hassling you or if I may seem WP:HOUNDING, I do not mean to come off this way... I'm merely still watching this page because of our previous discussion. I am baffled by this, where you apparently semi'd a page because you will be away for the summer? Is that what you meant? See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators, specifically Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure. The block is even more baffling. That IP belongs to Oberlin College (as the Daily Dot article says, the editor was a sophmore), so the IP represents multiple users. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vandalism occurred over five years ago. The chances that the same person is editing on the same machine five years later is slim to none. That is considered (very) stale and no block or protection is warranted. Please understand I'm just trying to help. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 16:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still have three weeks' time of summer classes. Your quote is Wikilawyering by quoting part of a sentence. The vandalism happened 5 years ago, but was discovered recently after the vandal admitted to it online. I semi-protected it to prevent kids from repeating the hoax again, which from my experience happens . The story has broken open into the Internet, become something of an in joke, and preventing harm to Wikipedia is certainly a reason to semi-protect temporarily in such a circumstance: "In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." (bolding added for emphasis). I did not indef protect it, although, my shoulder angels duked it out. I repeat, the first clause of the section forbids "indefinite semi-protection to pages", which I didn't apply. The vandalism had in fact occurred, the hoax was repeated internationally, and, again, based on my rational expectations, will almost certainly happen again. A 31-hour IP block and a month of semi-protection are not out of line. Please, go ahead and reverse my actions, but mark my word, I warned you all in so many words what would happen. The next hoax coming out of Wikipedia might be that John Seigenthaler was born in Cameroon. My philosophy as an admin is to balance out the desire that "anyone can edit" with our responsibility to verify facts, as we build an encyclopedia. If you ever need a reference to get into law school, I promise to write one for you. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to again reiterate that I mean no harm in reaching out to you about this. I feel bad for badgering you as much as I have, truly. I will not reverse your administrative actions anymore, but I reserve the right to express my concerns in a calm and constructive way. Semi-protecting to prevent (significant) abuse that may be caused due to media attention is perfectly valid, but that is not the rationale you provided. You made it sound as if it were preemptive; why would you point out your pending absence? I will not comment on why I disapprove of the duration of protection that you chose, since I assume it is related to the duration of your summer break. I can now understand why you would think the block would serve a purpose, maybe you assumed this person would see that their hoax was removed and then try to add it again. That's a fair thought, but flawed logic. Five years is far too long ago to warrant a block, even for a static IP. I don't think this block will do any damage as it's had no activity since the concerned edits, but it is not fair to block a shared IP because of a single edit that happened so long ago. Pretty safe to say that user has moved on, or is taking quite a while to complete their undergraduate degree... At any rate, I apologize for yet again intervening you. I consider you a colleague, and I think disagreement and discussion is not only typical of a collegial environment, but in many ways encouraged. Through discussion we find consensus, and in the end that makes us better admins. Best — MusikAnimal talk 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Just so we're clear, the subject of my garbled edit summary was the young vandal's(s') summer break, not my pending absence due to a wiki-vacation. Have a good day! Bearian (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) And thank you for your honesty. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Bearian (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protecting the page was very reasonable, but the block was not and is now something folks are laughing at. As administrators, we're supposed to not only janitorize, but also exercise good judgment. Blocking an IP for a 5-year-old vandalism not only doesn't help the situation in any measurable way, it harms the (sometimes already shaky) reputation of administrators. There are already thousands of folks out there that think we're power-mad martinets instead of mop pushers which is part of why I don't log-in that often unless I need the bit to do something useful. Please use this opportunity to learn and recognize that an ineffective action is often worse than inaction. We're not here to send messages, we're here to keep things shiny. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can take the jokes, I try to use mature judgment and to admit my errors when they occur, and I don't need the power. I'm not sure that Wikipedia can function well as a public service much longer, due to the high level of vandalism, spam, and hoaxes, many of which take years to discover, and when we become the story. We are getting out of balance when a sysop can't make a short-term block against a IP address that is known to be have been used by two college students pulling a stupid prank, without several people getting in an uproar. Don't we owe a fiduciary duty to protect the Wikimedia Foundation's property interests? I even reversed the block, and I still get hassled. Why can't people take "yes" for an answer? Bearian (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What good did blocking do?

[edit]

I'm referring to this: User_talk:132.162.68.56, what good did blocking do since it's over 5 years old? It's incredibly stale. Tutelary (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed it; see above. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Bearian (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Girls needs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {[Prod2|[[WP:SOAP]].}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faran college jhang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prep school. 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) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing new articles: ProppaNOW and None Too Fragile Theatre

[edit]

Not sure what "review" means, as this is the first time I've noticed receiving "notifications" and I didn't see any edits from you. Hope they were of use.Beth Wellington (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I think you mean my review of new pages. Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Special:NewPages. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ten thousand thanks. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, wikipedia seems to tend toward bats and bricks and pokes, not strokes for a job well done. And they wonder why there is a problem with editor retention and administrator burn out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesJUneJuly2014&oldid=1232498256"