Jump to content

User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2012

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


User:134.36.154.191

[edit]

Hi. A year ago you blocked User:134.36.154.191 for 6 months. Would you consider doing this again. The user added a date-of-death to a BLP: [1]. Had a look at Google News, and this looks false. Thanks, Rwendland (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

[edit]

Hi, I notice you left me a message back in August. My apologies for the delayed reply. I haven't really been here for about a year-and-a-half, so am just now contributing again and reviewing messages and the like. Your message concerned the entry List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures. Just looking at the entry, it seems the confusion has been sorted out, but if there's anything else you'd like me to look at, please let me know. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

[edit]

Query

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy, you made the comment I would not call DGG 'notorious' as an 'inclusionist'. ([2]) Were you referring to my comment, in which I called DGG an outspoken inclusionist? (emphasis added; [3]) There is quite a difference in the tone of those words, and I deliberately chose the latter, rather than the former. While I may disagree with DGG on some of his inclusionist impulses, I have a great deal of respect for him (unlike some of the other inclusionists, whose one-note, knee-jerk responses grate on my nerves), and I would not ever use such a loaded word in reference to him. A quick review of the entire discussion shows that you are the only person to use the word "notorious", and I am the only other person who referred to DGG directly; if it is my comment to which you are referring, I'd appreciate you refactoring your comment, since it is a serious mischaracterization of my remarks. If it is not, could you point out the comment to which you are referring? It is possible that I missed a deleted comment, or one which was misspelled. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Horologium (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liberalism in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Social Security
Slut-shaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deviance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

[edit]

As this article says "This page is intended to reflect the page Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States." I am notifying all those who !voted in the AfD for that article about this AfD discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I commented. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

[edit]

Pule cheese

[edit]
The Food and Drink Barnstar   
Thanks for creating the new Pule cheese article and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of food-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw shucks. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

Sorry for the late reply (I always forget), but thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it. —Karma (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The I-so-wanted-to-create-that-article-but-you-beat-me-to-it Award

[edit]

To Bearian, for creating Pule cheese. I was really hoping that article didn't exist yet, but it does because of you. Well done! LadyofShalott 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moar dramas

[edit]
Sorry about that, folks! Mea culpa! Further evidence that (1) No good deed goes unpunished around here, and (2) I'm just as guilty of assuming bad faith as many others.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mistake?

[edit]

I undid your revert as a mistake. You used rollback, so I assumed it was an accidental click since it wasn't vandalism and was discussed on talk. Ryan Vesey 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reason for reverting at the Sandy Hook TP

[edit]

"Claim regarding Nancy Lanza/Doomsday Preppers" - thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As my comment in the section above suggests, I think it was a mistaken rollback click. Ryan Vesey 23:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be citing the Yahoo news story - fine - but we should discuss this. Just because there is a story doesn't mean it is true.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a mistake; I was adding back in cited material, and I added another citation. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this discussion to the appropriate section of the Talk Page for Sandy Hook.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not until I get my edit done. Then we can talk or you can revert it. Until them, NO. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a mistake? Then why did you use rollback which leaves no explanation? It's not included right now and I won't remove it knowing it's not a mistake. There's a discussion we can all join at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Claim regarding Nancy Lanza/Doomsday Preppers. I'll be a couple hours. Ryan Vesey 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's like you folks keep interrupting me when I'm trying to talk calmly. I am putting my edit in, and then you can erase all to your hearts' content. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can say that if you have locked the page. None of the above editors have the ability to edit a locked page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level on Sandy Hook

[edit]

I checked the protection log but you gave no reason for the lock? May I ask why the protection at that level?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to stop the nonsense of being interrupted three times in my effort to add back in two citations and to add a third citation. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this. I wouldn't think that is a good reason to do that Bearian. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that protecting the article so you can add your own material is pretty much wrong on all levels. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[edit]

What exactly was that about? I noticed you protected the article to add material back in. There is a lot of discussion on the talk page, but I haven't seen you there. As there are a great many discussions on these very issues, the way you went about it was not particularly optimal, and seems to be causing a little drama. I'm guessing that wasn't your intent, but I would ask you join us on the talk page and not unilaterally full protect the page to edit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually shocked by this. I would assume this to be an abuse of admin tools to lock a page just so you can edit undisturbed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is if that is the case, but I'm not wanting to start a bunch of drama. I'm wanting to understand, and make sure he understands that. No need to get too excited just yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was pretty explicit in his reasoning on his edit summaries Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2)My sentiments exactly. Can I suggest you don't do this again. Although it may not have been your intent this looks awfully like using the tools to get your own way in a content dispute. And, in reply to Dennis Brown, I'm not sure how much it matters whether that was the intention or not it's obvious people could interpret it that way and so it was not wise to do it. Dpmuk (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) No, I did it honestly, please do not assume that I was abusing the tools. I was using the admin tools to revert vandalism that consisted of removing citations. I got edit-conflicted three times editing the article, then twice trying to respond to your concerns. LOL! Bearian (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I double-dare promise not to do that again!!! Bearian (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly clear, if you see my final edit, you can see that all I wanted to do was to add back in the three citations, not the text! Bearian (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I don't think that meets the definition of vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has several admin patrolling the talk page, 4000 edits, and over 1 million hits. If you want to fix something and be bold, adding a note on the talk page before or after would have been best. Actually, you could have just done that and someone would have picked up on it. Monitoring the page has been a full time job for a number of us, and this method was just a distraction. This article is already slammed and we have enough work to do keeping the drama down with everyone else. Work with us, not over us please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Happy holidays, everyone! Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you Bearian. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merry Christmas!

[edit]

Have a great Christmas Bearian! Sorry for all the drama and I'm glad we could work it out. Have a great day! Ryan Vesey 00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a kitten. That's an easy way to get back in my good books. Dpmuk (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kittens give Morbo gas Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kitten....my dogs will love it. (I kid)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

[edit]

Patricia Cloherty

[edit]

Hi mate, the above article made it through AFD after some clean-up work (for which you gave me a barnstar - thanks again!). I said then that the article would remain on my watchlist in case someone tried to return and reinsert the BLP vios. That happened yesterday. Happy225 returned and manually copy-pasted an old version of the article which included all the old attack-page stuff and the old AFD notice. I reverted that edit but the page was edited again soon after with a supposed age for the subject (one of the originally unsourced claims raised at AFD) and a change to past-tense for the subject's employment. I reverted that as unsourced also. I have left two notes at the editor's talk page but have received no response (though the second was only minutes ago). The editor in question has a history of edit warring, warnings and at least one block - all related to this BLP. Very strange. I thought it might be worth raising with you (rather than ANI), though I am happy to take it there if I need to - it's important enough, given the history. Anyway, your advice / action / watchful attention would be appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart111 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I've been on holiday/vacation. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

[edit]
Hello, Bearian.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My shiny thing...

[edit]

Thank you very much, Bearian. That was very kind of you! Have wonderful holiday season and a very happy new year. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

[edit]
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2012&oldid=1082521161"