User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2010

Hi. Awhile back you had sent me an e-mail, at a time when I was travelling and wasn't able to look then into the issue you raised. I'm back active now, but don't know if the issue has been resolved. If you still need me to look into it, please let me know and I will do so this week. You can respond either here or by e-mail. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I have made the required changes to show that the girl is a notable person and has got some award and has been interviewed as well in media. Her series has been reviewed as well. Now can you please tell me how I can make the page live from the stub you created for her page. Please give it a review to see if it needs any more changes. I hope this time it has some strong links. Thank you Viralthoughts (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Viralthoughts

Hi Bearian,

I have made the changes in the article and added more authentic and reliable sources and links. Please give it a review and tell me how I can make it live again? Thank you Viralthoughts (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Viralthoughts

As an admin can you look at this please? I message a couple of other admins too. User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning. Ikip 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am scratching my head about your comments...LOL. I was hoping to avoid more ANI drama today. Ikip 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Next issue

Content

I apologize, that was my mistake. Thank you! -- GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you, because I've learnt something today! I will now use "no longer inchoate" if the opportunity arises. --

• Well, obviously I had no idea what the content was, but I think that's irrelevant anyhow. The talk page shouldn't have been speedy deleted because the article exists. The reason the subject came up in the first place is that the article history contains a reference to the talk page, so we should bring it back if only to remove that mystery. Ma^t_chups 02:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've listed this at DRV. Ma^t_chups 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please STOP lying on my talk page. What I did was not vandalism.

Thanks for letting me know, good sir!

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Bearian/ArchivesJan2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Messages such as this look like canvassing. Please do not do that again. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the notice, but I don't think I am allowed to improve an article about myself! I think someone threw up a conference CV once. I keep an eye on it in case of vandalism, but happy for it to go --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to look at your AFD. After looking at your BLP contribs and past AFDs I'd love to get your opinion regarding my suggestion (or any of the suggestions for that matter) on the RFC on unsourced / generally bad BLPs.

Feel free to read and comment with what you Think

Nefariousski (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

you seem to have made one of your very rare mistakes here. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

and also at

WP:BEFORE, especially point 9: When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Otherwise wait for the RFC to be completed and then we'll work under the new regime. For now, please stick to ALL the current policies and guidelines. In case your response is "you've had 3 years"... well we've had 18000 articles on the project's cleanup list, with 2000 on the Unreferenced BLP section - which was listed as #82 of the 108 cleanup categories on that page. It wasn't in flashing lights or anything else to say "fix these ones first". Since last week we have brought this number down to just under 1100. So the old idea of normal editing and collaboration can still work - we don't need to be bullied by PRODs or deletion threats to get the job done.The-Pope (talk

) 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you 100%. I've tried for the past 3 years to fix up articles, and get nary a pat on the back or a

any help. The barbarians at the gate have taken over Wikipedia. They cry: Carthago delenda est! - get rid of 60,000 articles all at once, delete on sight! When others do the same, that is, ProD unreferenced articles, they get away with it, quoting Chairman Jimbo. But all I've gotten is grief over the past few days when I've been as sloppy a few times, as they have been for years. At least I've made some good test cases to show that I'm right. That's my only consolation around here. The proposed rules suck like dead bunnies. I was just testing them to prove that they won't work. I'm glad at least you two have noticed. Thank you again! Bearian (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC) See Deletionism at Meta. Bearian (talk

) 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dean_Willard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.