User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateOct2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Deletion Notice 2 User:ShotgunSanches 3 Recent block 4 RfA Thanks 5 Listing AfD results on talk pages 6 Hood (band) 7 Homersimpson07 8 RE:RfA 9 Loser (slang) 10 My RFA 11 Wooster School 12 Impunity Watch 13 RfA Thanks 14 USRD inactivity notification 15 Rescue 16 your concerns 17 RfA thank-spam 18 Thanks for your reply 19 Barnstarring you first! 20 Thank you 21 Tuna fish sandwich 22 Ryan Lupin RfA 23 RFA Thanks 23.1 Credits 24 Standards 25 Successful RfA - Thank you! 26 Thank you 27 The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007) 28 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langmaker 29 My (KWSN's) RFA 30 Thank you! 31 Featured article is always the hardest hit.

[edit] Deletion Notice

Thanks very much! I was hoping that was going to happen, though it took a loong time. Regards Buckshot06 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ShotgunSanches

24 hour block? How is this not a vandalism-only account? If you don't mind, I don't particularly want to be sat here again the same time tomorrow reverting this account's drivel dozens of times before someone shows up to block it – Gurch 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for pointing out what I guess must have been obvious to all but me. I'm a very new admin, and don't want to jump the gun. I'll unblock and reblock ASAP. Bearian 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it! Bearian 00:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they did. Don't worry about it – Gurch 00:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent block

Hello, your recent block of RodrigoMarro, was, in my opinion, uncalled for. You blocked him on the grounds that he was vandalizing. The Wikipedia:Introduction page is for tests, so that they don't occur on actual pages. Please consider that next time. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 00:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: If I am blocked because of this, I will go to other admins on this. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 00:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been warned, with a level three block, for something way stupider than pointing out a mistake. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 00:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Don't forget to unblock him, with an apology... Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, and, just so you know, the way that you were acting, it seemed like you considered me to be a sysop. I am not, though I may be looking into it in a while. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't let these things get you down; mistakes happen - threats happen; when I make a mistake it is so much easier to take when the victim gets all pissy and threatens me. When they are apologetic then I wilt - but that's RARE' indeed. I love the "if you delete this (again), I'll go to DRV, to the Arbcom, to Jimbo." They might even tell my mommy and I'll have to go to bed without dinner. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For not only unblocking and apologizing to users they blocked in error but actually having the courage to come on WP:AN and make a public apology (which is far above and beyond standard procedure), I award you, Bearian, this barnstar. Mr.Z-man 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions... First, please read WP:AUTOBLOCK. The two users at question were still unable to edit even after you unblocked them because they were autoblocked (the autoblocks are undone now). Second, it will help you to differentiate between genuine tests and blatant vandalism. The one edit by RodrigoMarro (talk · contribs) was definitely a test and not blatant vandalism. Adding "are a pathetic bunch of losers" to New York Mets is blatant vandalism (despite having some truth). They should count very differently in your mind towards whether a block is warranted. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Dear Bearian, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes. The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Expand for picture....

[edit] Listing AfD results on talk pages

Hi. I noticed the AfD close message you left on Talk:Dumbarton Collegiate Church. To save typing a comment out, you can just leave {{oldafdfull}} at the top of the page. It formats it with a fancy banner and a picture, and includes a link to the discussion (Here's a recent example). Apart from saving you the extra work and making the notice more prominent, it also won't get lost when someone archives old comments on the talk page. If it wasn't a straightforward keep, you have to do a little extra typing (e.g. {{oldafdfull|result=no consensus}}), and the full documentation is at Template:Oldafdfull. Hope this helps, and that I'm not lecturing you on something you already know about! Thomjakobsen 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hood (band)

Thanks Bearian, I'll do that tomorrow. Bláthnaid 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I forgot that I had already added some! [1] Anyway I'll add some more tomorrow. It's very late here, I think I need some sleep :) Bláthnaid 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I hadn't read that before. "Screwy things to my mind" is exactly right! I saw that Anne Enright's Booker Prize winning book was redlinked and it delayed my bedtime. Bláthnaid 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homersimpson07

AIV is for active vandals, as in right now (see instr on page). This guy hasn't edited in almost a day, so I removed it. Rlevse 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)...Icairns beat me to it, but I think he streteched it a bit. Rlevse 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:RfA

Thanks! I plan on trying again in a couple months, although I don't like the idea of having to nominate myslef again. Honestly, you comment last week got me into thinking about it. Thanks again - Rjd0060 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loser (slang)

I've been keeping an eye on Loser (slang), and I'm not feeling optimistic about its welfare. I'm inclined to Afd it unless we can find a way to make it be something more than a vandal magnet. The history's pretty grim. Any suggestions? Acroterion _(talk) 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. The Editor Review that you spoke of was definitely a bad experience - and I can see why that would cause you unease. It all started out as a simple misunderstanding - I thought that the issue raised was one the reviewer wanted to talk about, and I meant to say (in order to help him and not waste his time) that I could best respond to him if he wrote on my talk page (because that way I could get the "you have a new message" screen), however, it did not come off as that to that editor, who took it as a sign that I didn't want him commenting negatively on my review. Everything pretty much escalated from there - and a misunderstanding that should have ended after one or two messages ended up lasting way too long - and by the time I realized this and try to explain, it was too late, and thus the messaging continued until I got excessively frustrated and made a comment in the editor review I should not have. However, again, just wanted to say thanks for voting on the RFA - and if I run again hopefully I'll have done enough to overcome that bad experience and gain your support. Thanks again!--danielfolsom 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooster School

I nominated the page because I felt that there was no evidence of notability given within the article and was unable to find any after a (admittedly quick) check on Google. If evidence of notability is given within the debate I will vote for keep on the page and withdraw my nomination (depending on how much of a debate has developed). Since there currently is no evidence of notability (that I have seen to this point) I do not see the harm in keeping the debate open - it will probably motivate people to try and find the relevent information with which to improve and safeguard the article. If this can't be found within the timeframe of the debate and the consensus is to delete I do not see a problem - if evidence of notability later emerges the article can alwyas be reformed. Essentially I think that if the article should be kept (in that it meets with the relevent policies and guidelines) the best way to confirm that will be to leave the AfD open. [[Guest9999 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Impunity Watch

A tag has been placed on Impunity Watch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Impunity Watch. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Whispering 13:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thanks, ArchivesLateOct2007! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD inactivity notification

You have been declared inactive at USRD. If this is in error, feel free to restore yourself to the list, but only if you are truly active at USRD. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue

She may actually meet WP:BAND if she really is touring the UK. As for #3 on cdbaby's Christian list: it's not clear that people view that as a reliable "chart" to top. For a small fee, I'll put your favorite songs on Carlosbaby's chart-topper hits too. Instant notability for a small price. What price fame? Negotiable. :-) Carlossuarez46 16:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your concerns

I write on controversial topics. I make a special effort to fully conform to policy. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I try to followup every time someone expresses a concern, in their edit summary, or on an edit page, that my contributionss have lapsed from policy. I ask them to give me a civil, specific explanation.

In this comment you said that an article I was the main contributor to violated WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:LIST, and WP:OR.

WP:BLP?	I re-checked this, and other policies, before I responded to this concern, The most vocal proponent of this position has a very serious misunderstanding of this policy. This vocal critic's view is that we can't report on any allegations which haven't been proven to be true. That is not what the policy says. I asked this vocal critic to reconcile their interpretation of {{blp}} that required all reports to be provably true with WP:VER, which states, in its very first sentence: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
WP:POV	I asked respondents to be specific about how this article violated WP:NPOV, both on the {{afd}}, and in notes on their som of their talk pages. No one specified how the article violated WP:POV. I believe that no one offered a specific explanation of how this article violated WP:NPOV because they could not find passages that biolated WP:NPOV. As I am sure you know a perceived WP:NPOV is not ground for deletion. The recommended avenue for addressing a perception of POV is to raise the issue on the talk page.
WP:LIST	You are the only person to raise a concern over WP:LIST. I just checked WP:LIST, and I don't see how that article violated the guideline. WP:LIST is, of course, only a guideline. I question whether a perceived lack of conformance to a guideline should be considered ground for removal, instead of a civil discussion of the concern.
WP:OR	The most vocal critic in the {{afd}} also leveled this accusation. I found his reasoning to be frankly bizarre. Did you independently reach the conclusion the article lapsed from conformance with WP:OR? I thought I was careful to conform with WP:OR and would appreciate it if you could explain where I lapsed.

We discussed the responsibility to conform to policy before

You and I had a discussion, when you ran for administrator, about the responsibility administrators have to continue to fully conform to wikipedia policy.

Frankly, I deeply resent the accusations of policy violations leveled at my contributions in this {{afd}}. I am saddened that some of these irresponsible accusations came from administrators -- who should know better.

As I believe I wrote during your {{afd}} those who are trying to administer policy must fully conform to it themselves.

When I submit a contribution to the wikipedia I know that my contributions will be subjected to "merciless editing". My interpretation of "merciless editing" is editorial comments that might be frank about the contents, sttyle, grammar, spelling of my contributions -- but still conforms to WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Sorry, but I believe you dipped below these standards in your comment:

"Wow, where is Jimbo Wales when you need him? What afreakin' mess..."

Even if, for the sake of argument, my contribution violated all the policies and guidelines you said it did, your sarcasm was inappropriate, unhelpful, and has the unfortunate effect of setting a very bad example. We should all read the articles for ourselves, before we voice our opinion in an {{afd}}. But this recommendation is routinely ignored. We should all confine our comments in {{afd}} within the bounds of civility. This policy is also , and WP:AGF and WP:NPA and are also routinely ignored.

I am going to assume you did read the article for yourself. But I am concerned that sarcastic comments like yours offer the example to less experienced wikipedians that (1) unhelpful sarcasm is acceptable; (2) reading the article is not necessary before one forms an opinion on its merits.

I have 22,000 edits under my belt. One of my concerns with the general direction of the wikipedia is that I encounter more self-appointed quality control volunteers than I do volunteers who are interested in adding policy-conforming content. Some of these self-appointed quality control volunteers have no real understanding of the wikipedia's policies, and some of them can't express themselves clearly -- resorting to unhelpful sarcasm is how they respond to attempts to initiate a civil dialogue. Please don't set them the example that unhelpful sarcasm is OK.

Candidly, Geo Swan 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

[edit] Thanks for your reply

Thanks for your reply.

I am sorry I didn't tell you this earlier, I don't consider self reporting yourself on [[WP:ANI/I] necessary, when you wrote me a completely satisfactory note on my talk page.

Yes, I can think of some help I would like to ask of you. Thanks.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About that particular {{afd}}, lots of people accepted the concerns of a couple of regular {{blp}} patrollers, who have an interpretation of {{blp}} that is very seriously at odds with other important policies, WP:VER, and WP:NPOV.

The closing admin from that {{afd}} gave short shrift to my questions on his talk page. And then he chose to voice some opinions in reply to one of User:Lawrence Cohen's comments in reply to your note on WP:AN/I. In one of those comments he said he thought all articles on Guantanamo captives should be deleted. Aren't closing admins supposed to bring an objective, independent view to the the {{afd}}s they close?

User:DGG, User:GRBerry, User:JoshuaZ have all gone on record that they do not agree with this new interpretation of {{blp}}. And the {{blp}} patrollers discount those opinions. I have been interacting with User:GRBerry for over a year now. I trust his objectivity. There are several occasions when he gave me heads-up when other wikipedians had nominated articles I started for deletion, and hadn't chosen to honor the usual courtesy to give a heads-up to the article creator.

I could go to DRV today. But I want to wait and see if I can get settled whether {{blp}} really does proscribe the DoD sources I used. If the final answer is that this interpreation of {{blp}} really does prescribe the DoD sources I will forget about using them.

Okay, that is one big piece of help. You may not be signed up for another. If you are I am going to ask you some questions about the reasons you put forward for your deletion opinion.

Did your deletion opinion rely heavily on the {{blp}} patrollers' new interpretation of {{blp}}?

Forgive me, but when you wrote: "...that it was of special interest to a small band of persons," First, why is this important, second, why shouldn't I see this as just another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

In my experience {{afd}}, and the other deletion fora, are viper pits, where the regulars routinely violate WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Violations of those policies are so normal that no one even comments on them.

At the time the first articles I had nominated for deletion were being discussed I took a look at some of the articles that were being nominated for deletion. One guy who had an interest in Astronomy had created a bunch of stub articles on stars. His critics were such ass-holes! Several of them used the argument, "I never heard of it." Well heck, most people would be hard pressed to name a dozen stars. That is another instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

I think Carlos Castenada was a terrible charlatan. I think Astrology is a crock of shit. But I wouldn't dream of deleting articles on those topics. Who says articles have to be of interest to everybody?

I think there is a big problem with notability. For controversial topics notability just devolves to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I decided to try out the Citizendium. They don't follow the wikipedia's example with notability -- seeing it as being too POV. Instead they plan to substitute "maintainability". A better choice, IMO, just as WP:VER opts for verifiability over truth.

Finally, what is wrong with the sources I used? The DoD sources, what is wrong with them? Was your only objection to them the {{blp}} concern raised by the regular {{blp}} patrollers? I strongly suspect that when the dust has settled their interpretation will turn out to be bogus. The wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I strongly suspect the Seton Hall studies are going to turn out to be historically important.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:P.S. How many stars should we have articles on? I figured one for every star that has an unique historical name, because it was visible ot the naked eye before the use of telescopes for astronomy, every star that is recognized, or cited as a leading example of a class of stars, and every star, real or imagined that plays a role in fiction story. Why can't we just have lists of stars? Because every star that is mentioned in more than one list should have its main details mentioned in just one place. And that can't be any of lists.

[edit] Barnstarring you first!

Because you deserve one way more than I do. :) My action was business as usual. You went well above and beyond. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your willingness to listen to others and respond with grace and humility to what you perceive as valid concern. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...for the RfA support! Dppowell 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuna fish sandwich

The page is much better now. Thanks. Mindraker 09:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I second that. All the more reason to keep it. Well done. Nick Graves 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Lupin RfA

Hello, please respond to my query about my RfA Criteria on the RfA in question. I'm not so sure you really like it, so please respond. Thankyou. Lradrama 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying. So, you think that my standards are fair and I should stick to them? I just want to know I've been going about RfA voting in a correct and fair manner, that's all. Lradrama 08:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

[edit] Standards

Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, I was just making a message to SolidPlaid. Yeah, you're right in that keep is the fall-back option in closing AfDs - for good reason, deletion policy says "When in doubt, don't delete" in large, bold letters. To answer your question, I gather the thing to write is "No consensus", possibly adding ", default to keep."

(It does feel a little weird that you wouldn't know this. If I misunderstood and you do, please disregard. As an offside, my RfA thank-you note usually ended with "MESSAGE EATEN BY BEARS", but on this particular page I decided to leave it out... :P) --Kizor 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Any time. A small mistake, though - the line is in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. --Kizor 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever feel that we need guides and helpme files for just navigating the Wikipedia: pages? --Kizor 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks Bearian.David Justin 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langmaker

Hello, I wanted to raise this AFD close with you. This was a classic case where you need to find consensus by reference to policy rather than by just reading the final comments in the AFD. There are multiple assertions of notability but no-one has actually provided any sources. Assertions are not notability. Notability is defined as having multiple independant sources. Sourcing was flagged up several times in this discussion but I do not see any actual sources provided. I'm sorry but I think this was a bad call. Would you mind revisiting this one? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I guess that I should mention that I don't consider a tengential mention in the LA times as a reliable source about this site since it does not discuss the site in any way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successful. I'll do my best to justify the confidence you've placed in me! Dppowell 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article is always the hardest hit.

Generally, it's the first thing the little shits see, so... And you can't get in trouble for 3RR if you're reverting vandalism; 3RR only applies to legitimate edits, if it's vandalism, you can't 3RR. HalfShadow 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• End of this archive. Bearian 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)