This user may have left Wikipedia. BeteNoir has not edited Wikipedia since June 9, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
You wrote: Sorry I added a "db|advertisement" template if it was the wrong one. But I searched high and low for an appropriate predefined template along the lines of "advertisement", and didn't see one. In the future, if I encounter an article that is merely a blatant commercial advertisement, what template should I apply? BeteNoir 17:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no specialised speedy delete tempalte for this, becaue advertisements, even "blatent" advertisemets, are not grounds for speedy deleteion. Read the speedy delete criteria. If none of them apply you must just take the matter to WP:AFD. Often a long ad is also a copy vio, and can be taken to WP:CP with {{copyvio}}. Sometimes it is a "blatent" copyvio from a commercial content provider, and can be speedied under A8, but usually not. DES(talk)17:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your personal recommendation that the Ruth Lynne entry I have written needs to be "cleaned up". But I would, however, like to point out in reference to your uninformed addition of said page to the Australian celebrity page, that the country of New Zealand is in fact not just another state of Australia, as some ignorant people seem to think. New Zealand is in fact a country in its own right, as much as Canada, and shares only location in the Pacific and membership of the Commonwealth. By your logic you could also call a Tongan celebrity an Australian celebrity, even if they have never been to Australia. 220.238.187.23413:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Nicole Snook[reply]
Bete -- Thanks for your comments. I did most of the template/classification work out of frustration related to categorization. It seems that there are many different ideas of how to use categories at Wikipedia. If you read through the discussion and archives at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, you can get a sense of the differences.
Categorization seems to be problematic in many ways. There isn't yet consensus on how it should be done. Some people see it as a classification system, and other as a navigation system. I think it can be both. I've been trying to institute some small changes in policy to reflect the reality of how things are categorized, and it often feels like trying to herd cats. Perhaps the best way to get something done, is not to talk about it, but to just start doing it and see if people object. If you don't get objections, you're probably doing something good and useful. This is what I have tried to do with Wikipedia:Classification and the related templates. I haven't gotten objections, and people like you are using them, so I guess it is working.
As for categorization by nationality, I have mixed feelings. It often seems that the nationality of people is irrelevant. Case in point, Film directors. I don't see much point in forcing all directors into categories by nationality, when so many of them are international. What nationality is Roman Polanski? It often seems as an arbitrary way to make categories smaller. I would not be surprised to see a much different categorization and classification system implemented in the near future. For that reason, I'm hesitant to put much more energy into it now. So know what you are getting yourself into and good luck. -- Samuel Wantman03:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing great work identifying articles that don't belong on wikipedia. Well done. However, please take a look at WP:CSD - there are certain clases of article that we don't need to discuss before deleting. Please don't send them to AfD, just tag them as {{db|'whatever reason'}} (where whatever reason = a reference to one of the speedy deletion criteria, e.g. empty or nonsense or nn-bio) - if your categorisation is right, an admin will then 'speedy delete'. You'll find it is less work and faster that afd. Thanks again. --Docask?12:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are putting this tempalte on many articles. Please note that the consensus is that this should not just go on just any article that lacks references, but rather on ones where the accuracy of the information is in question. - SimonP14:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question, concerning the reason for your election to describe
von Neumann cellular automata as a subclass of cellular automata? Not
that the characterisation is incorrect. Just want to know your motivation.
Thanks. William R. Buckley06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created a baby stub for the article benzethonium chloride.
I see you have turned down the request for adminship by user Mehrshad123, so perhaps you are already aware that this user is, in the opinion of myself and a number of other users, an active vandal. I am currently having a hard time keeping Mehrshad123 from editing the biography of Avadis Tevanian to remove references to his well-documented Armenian-American ancestry (he or she wants to declare him an Iranian-American without any references whatsoever). I consider her edits not just a violation of proper Wikipedia principles, but an insult to the man himself. I hope you will do whatever you can to prevent Mehrshad123 from becoming an administrator of any sort, and will take positive action to prevent his/her continuing damage to this great project. BeteNoir
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (aeropagitica)23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Enough -- I Was Out Of Control There -- Your Warning Well-Taken
Need to get a bit more of the objectivity I so value in this project. I intend to take a long break from Wiki editing, though I do love this place so. Wikipedia will self-correct everything eventually, even without my sometimes misguided attempts to force the process to speed up. Bete Noir00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BeteNoir is upset because of a a legitimate edit made to Avadis Tevanian article by me
I am truly sorry if you are offended and angered by the edit, however you cannot simply declare someone to be Armenian because you feel that their name sounds Armenian.
Regarding your false accusation and personal attack on me saying that I "declared Mr. Tevanian as an Iranian American", this accusation is bogas and false. I had simply removed the "Armenian" reference because there is no source in any biography on Mr. Tevanian either rumored or otherwise. Indeed there are absolutely no refernces to Mr. Tevanians ethnicity anywhere.
Regarding my request for adminship, that is none of your business and it as nothing to do with your issues with me. Again I am sorry that you are so angered and hateful.
BeteNoir: Please stop the personal attacks immediately or you will be blocked. This is your third warning.
I apologized here, apologize again, and will apologize as many more times as necessary. But back to content: the references state Mr. Tevanian is Armenian-American, and he will be stated as such in his bio. It is only common courtesy. Bete Noir08:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian source you added was based on this Wikipedia article.
Can you not see the problem here?
The most likely story is that Mr. Tevanian is of dual ethnicity. Tevanian was my boss for 4 years and in that time he never identified himself to me or anyone else as Armenian.
Mehrshad12320:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence that the Armenian Association of Maine article was based on Wikipedia content. It is described on that site as original research by Anthony Mezoian.
Of course, we have a No Original Research policy here at Wikipedia, so nothing Avadis Tevanian told you, or failed to tell you, is a valid basis for any of your edits. Bete Noir22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not following the logic. I am saying that neither Tevanian nor anyone else (besides you) has claimed Tevanaian to be Armenian. The source you gave got its information from Wikipedia! I will now wait for you to come to go to my history page and start picking out people like yourself who might have a problem with my edits and trying to rally them to your cause. (Yes I was approached by someone who said that you were doing this.)Mehrshad12305:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already apologized: I did send an over-the-line personal Wiki-mail to admin Aeropagitica, who saw fit to place it on my talk page. Not sure if that's normal Admin policy for him to do that, but it's all ancient history. Let's make this more about content than about you or me, OK? And I am listening: you claim that the Armenians of Maine list Tevanian as Armenian-American only because they got that idea from Wikipedia. I have carefully examined the Armenian Cultural Association of Maine site, and I just cannot find the word Wikipedia anywhere, where they attribute anything of relevance to Wikipedia. Can you point it out to me? Bete Noir07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, people are allowed to delete content from their own user and talk pages that they wish unless that content was administrative action taken against them. There's no reason to get upset over this. See WP:UP: "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." Cheers. The Jade Knight04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that removal of administrative warnings is "often frowned upon". I was under the impression that it was verboten -- I will be less stringent in the future. Bete Noir10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to repeated vandalism on my discussion page again by BeteNoir:
== Do Not Continue To Intentionally Delete Administrative Warnings == This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Administrative warnings are an attempt to assist you in using Wikipedia effectively, not vandalism. The section entitled "Cut it out" has been restored above. Bete Noir04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay out of topics of discussion that do not involve you with lies and fabrications of "administrative warnings". And, I have the right to remove retaliatory vandalism from my discussion page, from users such as yourself. You and your gang now have a long history of such actions, and this can be used by Wikipedia administration in a future decision to ban you as a troll.
You also have a history of stalking me in retaliation to a change I made to the Tevanian article -- if you are going to make threats, try to back them up with actions.Mehrshad12321:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled by your message on my talk page. ([1]). There were three versions of the article, and I picked the one whose deletion was contested. If I undeleted your contributions, we'd have some very strange "history fluxes" floating around, which would be a bad thing. I find it very inappropriate that you immediately accused me of censorship, and tried to intimidate me with "I'll give you once chance...". Assuming good faith is one of the central policies of Wikipedia. If you can't assume good faith, you'll have a hard time here. Sean William@20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the one that would be undeleted was the last one to have been deleted, which was (I believe) mine. But you are right, that I assumed it was a deliberate removal of history, when I should not have done so. Please unappall yourself at your earliest convenience. Bete Noir22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BeteNoir! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 698 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Hello BeteNoir! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 698 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Template:Fooian archaeologist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)