User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2014

Archives

Archive 1

Hello Bearian, it seems that you have removed G5 CSD tag from

not valid. The current condition is very bad with no sources and it still qualifies for deletion. I encourage you to find mulitiple reliable sources to avoid the deletion. Nothing else, thanks for understanding & have a nice day. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

No problem, I'll work on it in the next 7 days. If I don't get to it, or I can;t find anything, go ahead. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a week brain and I generally forget things quickly. Just give me a ping if you can't find anything. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found all there is to say at

redirected it as an easy way out. Now, you have two choices: (a) let it stand as is, or (b) tag it for speedy deletion as a newly created redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(a) is good. Just it will leave a blue link on my User:Jim Carter - Public/CSD log hehehehe . Good job! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar article please see. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have forgot to add your signature while closing this Afd. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to point out to you that despite people believing the article was a hoax, the term does actually appear (albeit rarely) in some literature, see [1], for example. The "ring" is actually a lone pair. Likewise, "cycloethane" would basically be synonymous with ethene. Perhaps the subject doesn't deserve an article outright, but at least should be redirected to the CH4 page. Fryedk (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote in so many words that, even if not a hoax, it is not notable. I would not oppose a permanent redirect to

ethene. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you please explain this edit. JimRenge (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LaShonda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John. 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) 09:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both things and yes kittens are awesome. Anyway the personal info was known because the people who did that go to my school

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Gdfusion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--gdfusion (talk|contrib) 18:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian; Last week you had reviewed an Admin only page protection request which I had requested for the Wikipedia page. The request was granted on my promise to start an RFC for the issue of one editor involved in a content dispute with 4-5 other editors in consensus. Now someone has foreshortened the RFC (closing it before its completion) by noticing that the issue focused on only one editor involved in a content dispute with 4-5 editors. Could you re-open the RFC so that it can run to completion (2-3 days left on full Page protection which was granted). The other option is to possibly draw a conclusion from the editors who did manage to state their opinions already. The general opinion seemed to be to either ask for an extension of the full Page protection for more time, or, other editors have requested that a topic ban on User:Chealer to possibly be granted. Otherwise, the 5 editors who are in consensus on the Talk page there would need more time on full page protection to try to reason further with the single opposing editor. Could you click over to the Talk:Wikipedia to view it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this case, and I don't want to say, "No." Please ask another admin for help. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I appreciate your carefulness in this matter. User:Evergreen Fir has now joined the discussion and expressed distress about Talk:Wikipedia. Could you contact that editor to indicate that this is being done as part of the discussion here on this Talk page and elsewhere. User:Evergreen apparently did not know that I was the editor who requested the original page protection (which expired Tuesday), and that 4 editors including Admin:Eustress have tried to get constructive Talk discussion going with User:Che... with no success for 4 weeks. Without knowing any of this, User:Evergreen also foreshortened the RFC which I had promised to start there when I originally asked for Page protection. Any counsel to User:Evergreen Fir would be appreciated. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearian! I noticed that you recently made a "Keep per

Maybe later, can this wait? Bearian (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The essay has been around for years, there's no rush! --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What about Mouna Ayoub? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a rich person attracts significant media attention, they could be notable; see

tilting at windmills. In the case you mentioned, probably she would be kept at AfD, but go ahead and nominate her. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. I can't. In the meantime sources were added. My curiosity served for some development in that article. Nice to meet you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article now convincingly demonstrates, she is clearly

WP:Notable for many reasons. The article is amply sourced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was inappropriate of you to protect the article Trial of Oscar Pistorius, which is owned by User:HelenOnline.

This is an important article which is currently being kept in a false state, which has major legal implications for Wikipedia.

It was my suggestion for HelenOnline to recuse herself from editing, since she has scared away all other editors from the article, and is primarily responsible for the article being in a false state.

In order to avoid major legal implications for Wikipedia, you are best advised to remove the protection so that it can be amended to be an accurate article, which is not the case at present.

Alternatively, if you do wish it to be kept in a false state, it is a good idea for a template to be added to the front so that it states that it is owned by HelenOnline and all legal inquiries can be directed to her. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:ANI#IP_harassment_of_editor --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI

WP:OWN. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. Wikipedia:No legal threats. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on your hotmail account.

please reply to me there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.201.66 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get anything about Wikipedia, so I can't respond. I did get two spam emails regarding Bulgaria and Thailand, so if you sent those, I am going to disregard this request to communicate. If you have questions, please post them here. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and explanation regarding (talk) (cont) 01:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James A. Jennings House 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}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Minor token of recognition for the calm viewpoint you bring to our community. Fæ (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kindly. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearian, my recollection is you know the technical ins and outs of archiving. If you look at my talk page, you'll see that the first two sections are very old. Not too long ago I noticed that they weren't archiving, and I assumed it was because they hadn't been signed (and timestamped). So, I spent far too much time going through the page history and signed them. They're still not archiving. Why?

I vaguely remember this happening once before quite some time ago, and my "system" worked, but even assuming my memory is correct, there've been a lot of bot issues since then, and I don't know if the bot being used on my talk page is the same as the one before or, even if it is, if the algorithms are the same.

Any light you can shed on this would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Bbb23, the timestamps weren't in the correct format. One was missing a comma and the other was missing a digit. I've gone ahead and fixed it, hope you don't mind and hopefully it'll get archived now.  NQ  talk 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: mind? I think it's great that you took the time to look at it and fix it. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for my first Barnstar! It is truly greatly appreciated. I do apologize, my user page is somewhat less surreal now. I shall strive for some level of surrealism on it in the future.

I am still likely going to AfD Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, It's been deleted for non-notability on the German Wikipedia, and while I'm generally an inclusionist, I don't consider people who are essentially distant descendants of former royalty to be inherently notable, and given that he's not considered notable in Germany, I can't see why he should be considered notable here. While I am aware that he is, very distantly, in the line of succession to the English throne, many people even in the top 50 of that line don't have an article. I would absolutely appreciate your participation in that AfD when I get around to officially suggesting it. XeroxKleenex (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is Mokiecoke. Recently you changed the lead paragraph of List of American State and Local Politicians convicted of Crimes. You specified that chiefs of staff be included as ‘politicians’. Unfortunately, editors Collect and Hmains reverted your edit.

This article has always taken the word ‘politician’ to mean all elected officials, their appointees, such as (judges, secretaries, committee chairmen) and their direct staffs, which would include (staff chiefs, press secretaries, finance directors, lawyers, advisors and others). Politicians such as governors make hundreds of appointments. The president has even more. See List of positions filled by presidential appointment with Senate confirmation.

I believe that elected

In this election year, Collect/Hmains/Hairhorn seem to have noted the large number of Republican listings. By restricting the definition of politicians to ‘elected officials’ the number of Republicans falls dramatically and things like Watergate, Iran-Contra and Lawyergate completely disappear from the list.

At

For all the discussion, none of these editors have suggested a more workable definition than the dictionary definition currently in use, which they are trying to change without consensus. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I note that you are an administrator so, I leave it to you to revert Collect/Hmains/Hairhorn’s edit of you and/or come up with better parameters. Thank you. Mokiecoke (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You put on the notice of the Canada National Quidditch Team a deletion tag that went uncontested. I would like to contest that deletion now and would like to prove to you that there are numerous sources (from Vancity Buzz, the Guardian, National Post, the Vancouver Sun and others) that the national Canadian team for quidditch does exist and is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danachos (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the notice about the Wikibreak on top of this page? That's why it's taken almost 2 weeks to get back to you. Also, I proposed deletion on this stub almost 3 months ago. It's far too late to contest the deletion at this time. However, if you wish, it can be "userfied" so you can work on it more. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian! Can you please tell me how can I apply for

Just go and do it yourself, or get a popular and active user to nominate you. I am neither popular around here due to my admin actions, nor I am very active since I have been been busy "off-wiki". Please read my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards to see if I'd support you. Again, I'm not sure you'd want to have me nominate you, as my bad reputation might sink you. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at

Hello, some time ago you deleted the created page FRIMO because of the missing explanation of significance of this company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lhadameck/FRIMO

I had included several sources from press releases across the web to prove the notability of this company.

What can i improve at the site to publish it to en.wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhadameck (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Greetings from India, This is (an informal) request for coment at Talk:Legal_education#Applied_legal_education. Since I am not aware of US legal education nuances about nomenclature and system about "Applied_legal_education" I suppose you can help us by providing apropriate info in improving Law related articles for related aspects.

I belive your inputs will be very valuable and waiting for you comment

Thanking you and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago you PROD2-ed this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been

As you presented an argument for keeping such articles at the AFDs I commented on, I wanted to open a discussion with you about that issue. I've been thinking a lot about those articles, particularly given the accusations of bad-faith hurled at the nominator by people !voting "keep"--yourself excluded, as I didn't see you do that. Perhaps away from the whoop and whorl of the main discussion, you can give me your view on this issue: after much reading of (some very dry) policy pages, it seems to me that these type of articles likely violate

People may be famous for one thing they did - such as a crime (see

Mayor of Albany, New York, or the oldest man from Japan. BLP1E states that a person can be notable even for one thing they did, if "the single event he was associated with ... was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Bearian (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• The way I see it, many of these articles (though not all) fit perfectly in #1. Many of these contestants have little fame outside the pageant in which they competed. To me, it seems very similar to reality show contestants in things like American Idol or America's Got Talent. Do some of those contestants become notable outside the competition? Sure. But many do not. As such, their articles redirect to the main competition. I'm not really seeing much difference between the two cases. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity - "The way I see it" - doesn't matter, neither in

Grand Marshall of a famous parade; they become famous for being famous - 'democratically elected royalty for life'. The other winners of lesser known contests (Miss Supranational, Miss Fire Island, Sugar Bowl Queen) just don't get the same kind of media attention, often for good reasons that discretion would be leave out. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(Thanks for the replies, BTW!) Everyone is subjective in their policy interpretation in cases like these. I don't hold that mine is sacrosanct--it's not. That's why I used the qualifier "the way I see it", to indicate "this is how I understand the policy." On to the more salient portion of what you wrote. I very carefully stated that many but not all such contestants would be non-notable per BLP1E. I have no concerns regarding the winners of such contests--without doubt, they will receive enough non-event related coverage to be notable. It's when one gets past the winners, further and further down the results table, that one runs into real questions of notability. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I would agree with you on the runners-up and Miss congeniality winners. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about running for adminship, and I was hoping you could either, at some point, nominate me or tell me why you don't think you should (preferably the former).

Well, yes, you appear to pass User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards, so I'd support your nomination. However, I'm so busy off-wiki that I couldn't mentor you properly. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Whether you meet personal standards or not, the minute you have to ask someone to nominate you, it's a negative. The most successful and most positive candidates are those who were approached to see if they were interested :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Featherstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private eye. 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) 09:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Amortias's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ace @ buroh 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:MILL]] and [[WP:TNT]].}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow