User talk:Bearian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bulldog123 (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 3 April 2011 (→‎Apology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

  • Archived discussions

For older discussions on this User's talk page, see

  1. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarchToJune2007,
  2. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJulyToMidAugust2007,
  3. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateAugust2007,
  4. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlySept2007,
  5. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateSept2007,
  6. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlyOct2007,
  7. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateOct2007,
  8. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesNov2007,
  9. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2007,
  10. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2008,
  11. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEndJanFeb2008,
  12. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarch2008,
  13. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAprilMay2008,
  14. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJune2008,
  15. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuly2008,
  16. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2008,
  17. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOct2008,
  18. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesNov2008,
  19. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2008,
  20. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2009,
  21. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFebMar2009,
  22. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesApr2009,
  23. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMayJune2009,
  24. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJulyAug2009,
  25. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesSept2009,
  26. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNovDec2009,
  27. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2010,
  28. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFeb2010,
  29. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMar2010,
  30. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAprMay2010,
  31. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuneJuly2010,
  32. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2010,
  33. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNov2010,
  34. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2010, and
  35. User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2011.

New stuff

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!

Get going!

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Non-convexities (economics): C.f. Shapley–Folkman lemma

Hi Bearian!

I am glad that you liked the DYK fact, which had languished for 5 days before I de-glossed market failure.

Also, 20 minutes before your checking it off, I removed a notice ---that part of it had been lifted from the article on the Shapley–Folkman lemma---the new paragraphs triggered warnings that the article was too long. So the main content was on the other article for about a day. I lifted another paragraph or two from the SF-lemma, discussing non-convexities in consumer preferences.

The combination of the notice about the SF-lemma and the gloss of market failure combined to scare away other reviewers, I suppose. I am glad that you reviewed it.

If you liked the short article on non-convexity in economics, then you might like to look at the Shapley–Folkman lemma, which received GA status a few weeks ago, and I hope may receive A-level status well, if not in my time, and not in the time of my children, then possibly in the time of my (future) childrens' children ....

The article has an ongoing peer-review, with current concern about whether the lead be an exposition rather than a summary. (I wrote it to be understandable by non-mathematicians and non-economists, and so included examples in the lead.)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Bearian (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Anastaplo needs an article

There is a site about Anastaplo, but no WP article! I'd think that his Supreme Court case might inspire an article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on several other articles right now, so that will have to be put off. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming article

article "Rights of Englishmen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorsh1991 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Kirsten Gillibrand

I saw you've made some edits to Kirsten Gillibrand in the past. You may want to watch User:UpstateNYer/Gillibrand, where I'm conducting a rewrite in conjunction with a member of the Senator's campaign. That, and your review of what has been done so far could be useful. upstateNYer 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Be aware that I also worked on all three of her campaigns, have met her, and am friends with several past staffers of hers. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll have good insight. Your COI isn't anything compared to the user I'm working with, anyway. I will play the COI litmus tester. upstateNYer 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of the Roman Republic

  • I'll see what I can do... Mandsford 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>> Please revert me if I screw up.<< I've got no worries about that. The other night, I took an overview of adapting the other article over to this one, and it's going to be a task on integrating the two, though not monumental.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011



This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


  • Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile!
  • Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks.
  • New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students.
  • Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group.
  • Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today!
  • Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

please add your profile to the Online Ambassadors mentors page

Hi Bearian!

If you're still interested in being a mentor this term, please add your profile to Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors. If you have any questions about the ambassador role or what you're interested in doing as an Online Ambassador (whether mentoring, pitching in in other ways, or something else), please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas Gracchius, Señor

Bearian, sorry not to get back with you sooner-- great work on Crisis of the Roman Republic. Sorry that I've not been of much assistance on this one, and the only edits that I can offer might be to try to pinpoint more dates on this one and put some brackets around some terms to make them magically turn blue. The Romans were very good at making note of the month, day and year that their emperors got assassinated, probably not so much with tribunes and praetors and consuls and such. Anyway, excellent work. I'd give out a barnstar, but after all these years, I still can't figure out what a barnstar is. Mandsford 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Sweetman

I just sent an email to you about this article. Thanks! XinJeisan (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!

Please help!

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far!

Regards,

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Duanesburg High School

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Daniel Hernandez Jr.

What part of "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving ..." do you not understand? You are not a noobie, and should know better. Further such obnoxious moves shall result in your being blocked. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hello Bearian. Let me begin by saying you are right. I should have waited a couple more days. However, I think you were just a tad over-the-top here with your response. First, the original AFD closed as a “No Consensus” with an opinion leaning towards Redirect. Second, as you can see by the ongoing AFD, as of today (and your right the consensus could change, but realistically not likely) to Redirect. The third point is more of a question;”…how was this move obnoxious”? Finally, I noticed in your edit summary that you protected for “Persistent Vandalism”, what’s that about? Either way it goes, hope you have a good day. Thanks for your note…it won’t happen again. ShoesssS Talk 17:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

AfD for Elle Mehrmand

I hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I know you would side on not deleting an article if possible and you did make (an admittedly) minor edit on this article once, so I hope you don't mind. But I believe there are COI issues in both the creation of the article and now that there are COI issues explicitly in the AfD -- which may include the possibility off line canvassing issues as well -- it should be addressed by an administrator more experienced in dealing with wikipolicy rather than me trying to continue to debate it with editors who may or may not be interested in that. If I am wrong I'm fine with learning that as well. Thank you XinJeisan (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilanti Food Co-op

A good cleanup may help, but don't expect the house to build itself. If you can be bothered to say "keep but cleanup", you can be bothered to at least try a cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YFC very worth of wiki entry: solar power, solar-powered bakery, self-production of honey. The list goes on and on.

Bearian, hi.

When you wrote, in the dialogue about Ypsilanti Food Co-op deletion, "I found whole bunches of whole oats of wholly reliable sources online with a fews clicks of the mouse on the links given above," what did you mean? I'm eager to find more source material to reduce spamminess of the YFC entry.

Many thanks, and warm wishes,

FoodNotFord in Ypsilanti

ps

No idea how I'll find/hear your reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodNotFord (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Enlarge the Circle

Thanks for your support at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing. The expanding socialization of our beloved WP is in the wind. No Wall of Acrimony will stand in the way. TRA! Buster Seven Talk 02:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy!

Danke. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


National Childminding

You don't have to let me know if you remove a speedy tag but thanks anyway. Of course, being a "large organization" is not a criteria for notability. I see the editor has added some appropriate third-party references to support the article and appropriately contested the speedy with comments on the talk page. Warfieldian (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and for doing lots of tidying up to help make the article I created meet Wikipedia standards - I appreciate it.Headhitter (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011



This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Well thanks!

Thanks for that! It's always nice to be recognized for something, even if it is a bit, well, surreal (and that star really is a nice shade of blue). Before curiosity kills me, though, I have to ask: was there any specific comment (or comments) that you were referring to?

And keep up the good work!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, alright then.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

American Art Therapy Association

Now that the AfD has closed as a "Keep", could you kick in a little effort in expanding the current stub? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For being such a hardworking, friendly, and all-around great admin (and editor!). It's always good to see your name around: I'm glad I voted for you all those years ago. Acalamari 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, it was a "per" vote, but at least it was a support nonetheless! Keep up the good work you do. Best. Acalamari 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Yeah. After these personal attacks here and here, I'm pretty much demanding an apology from you or I'm taking the issue up with another admin. A sysop who refers to content-dispute-related changes as vandalism and who calls a user with almost 5000 edits and 0 blocks a "POV-pushing vandal" is breaking Rule #1 of administrator etiquette. Bulldog123 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm… See this post for context, Bearian. There’s a lot water under the bridge with this complainant—maybe you already know that. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason for me to say anything new. The record is there for all to see. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you disagree with the AfDs I put up doesn't mean I don't have the right to put them up. I've never nominated an article or made an edit that did not have some sort of basis in policy or guideline. Adding a "trivia" tag to list of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners was 100% appropriate because the trivia-template refers not only to lists but also sections of articles. The new revised list of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners did away with all that trivia. So how exactly was my edit calling attention to what had to be done vandalism? (Yes I expect an answer to that) That you have had a disagreement with my interpretation of policy in the past doesn't give you the right to call my edits "vandalism" when they are not. And as I have shown on the other talk page, they are not vandalism by any definition of the word. WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE are not policies and should not be used when dealing with long-standing editors such as myself. As for the other comments (if you can call them that) above, I since stopped responding to the persistent harassment, wikihounding, and baiting done by Greg L. All Greg L has been doing for the last few weeks is following me from page to page misrepresenting my intentions and referring to every edit I make as "disruptive." If you want to fall for those misrepresentations, then so be it... but it's not helping solve the problem. Sysops are here to do help solve problems and find compromises... not aggravate the issues by choosing sides and calling people vandals. Anyway, I'll gladly ask another - unaffiliated - admin if your particular language was called for or not. And they can "review my record." So will you retract the "vandal" remark or will you not? Bulldog123 06:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of you asked for my comment. I'm posting the identical answer on each talk p. Bearian, I've learned not to use the word vandal or vandalism with respect to any established Wikipedian, no matter how unconstructive their editing. (But it does occur fro time to time in my edit summaries when I use a so called "Friendly" template, and if there's a complaint I apologize.) Even when they are actually doing the sort of thing that we would call vandalism if done by a outsider, it tends to evoke hostility. On the underlying dispute, Bulldog, the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responded on my talk page. And no, I have not received "many warnings" about this. In fact, I have received a grand total of 0 warnings about this. (Check my talk page - any warning I may have got was for accidentally marking a non-minor edit as minor -- this is not the same thing). I will mention though that there is absolutely nothing in policy that says a category or list cannot be removed from an article after surviving XfD discussion if it is unsubstantiated (as it was and still is for numerous such links spammed from List of Jews in sports) or used for WP:POINTy purposes (like the original spam of links was for black Golden Globes). Blocking a user for that would be a direct violation of admin privileges. Bulldog123 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian&oldid=422169771"