User talk:Bearian/ArchivesSeptEarlyOct2011

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

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

List of unlawfully killed transgender people

Which specifically of my deletions do you think were incorrect? I went through each one and checked the sources. This keeps coming up time and time and again (and in the AFD). To be included on that article, it's not enough that someone who was transgendered was murdered, they have to be murdered *because* they were transgendered. So which ones do you think I got wrong? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your message on my talkpage, you mention that some of the additions were well-sourced, I don't dispute that it that the sources don't meet the criteria of the lede - read them and tell me which ones you think I'm wrong about and do meet the criteria set out in the lede. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trannie??? Maybe it's different where you are but that word is generally frowned upon when I'm from when describing transgendered people. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hyberbole for a purpose. Apologies for any hurt feelings. Now I have to go back to work. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger): "But could we at least try to love each other?"
Batman (Michael Keaton): "I'd like that. But he's out there – right now. And I've gotta go to work." from User:Ihardlythinkso.
LOL. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks

Thanks very much for the kind barnstarrage. JFW | T@lk 13:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsville North High School

Is there a reason in which I am not seeing as to why you full-protected

WP:COI. The user in question has not edited since 2007; see Special:Contributions/Patricia Neuterer. While I can understand semi-protection due to the media fallout ([1] and [2] was enough for me to justify that IMO), I think full-protection might be extreme at this point. –MuZemike 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The question I have is was there any evidence of anyone trying to hide the edits or news of the suicides? I checked the history and found nothing that was removed or added about student suicides until yours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I changed it to semi-protection for just six more hours from now. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After further complaints were made, I unprotected it. I'll still watch it for vandalism, but I shall have told you so. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants used as medicine‎

Hi there. Given that you've withdrawn the AfD nomination, and that there's a pretty clear consensus to keep the article, how long does the discussion need to remain open? I'd much rather put my energy into the article itself, rather than swatting objections that have already been addressed as new people keep popping into the discussion. It's wearing me out. Waitak (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking forward to finishing up this sprint, and turn this article into something really worth having. Who knows, maybe one day it'll end up as a featured list. Stranger things have happened. Thanks again, and feel free to chime in on the article, if it's missing anything you're interested in. Waitak (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi,

I approached an admin about an AfD closure, and was told that the object of my request was "inconsequential", and that this justified him/her not responding to my question.  The only previous contact I have had with this admin (ref), complete with initial differences, led, at least from my viewpoint, to a constructive and positive outcome.  At this point I have agreed to stop trying to initiate a conversation on his/her user page.

I'm not mentioning the specifics here about the AfD, because I think I now have a new and different problem that needs dispute resolution.  It is a problem that has a risk of becoming adversarial, but seems unfair to ignore.  Were you to delve into the AfD issue, I think you would have sympathy to the long-term benefit to the encyclopedia.  Regarding this new issue, I expect that you appreciate my interest in continuing cordial relationships, have experience in Wikipedia interactions, and have wisdom to know some things that I should not do.  The minimum response that I am looking for is advice amongst the various paths of dispute resolution, or someone else who would be a good person to approach with the same question.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Contested PROD

The proposed deletion of

talk) 16:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk:Ginsberg's theorem#RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?

As a participant of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsberg's theorem, please comment at Talk:Ginsberg's theorem#RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?. Goodvac (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy censors Wikipedia

Wow, see this italian article. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

Are you just another Wikipedia administrator jerk? (The template for this is widely known and increasingly well understood).

But please don't answer that! Stay away from me! And for God's sake, don't tell anybody who you are! Calamitybrook (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Little idea

Here's a brand new template YOU could make for Wikipedia:
This is a typical jerk administrator
Administrators are widely acknowledged as a problem by Wikipedia (though also acknowledged as needed).
But since there are endless templates regarding editing, might there not be at least one template concerning problematic administrators?
Would this theory not be in keeping with Wikipedia's ethic or notion or whatever one calls it?
Shouldn't this simple expedient be as widely available to editors as the numerous other templates?
This seems reasonable.
You could get points among the administrators for developing this obviously winning idea, and I recommend you pursue it.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesSeptEarlyOct2011&oldid=454935811"