EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 27 June 2011: new section |
216.57.39.35 (talk) →Request for Unblock of NelsonDenis248: new section |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)</div> |
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0153 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0153 --> |
||
== Request for Unblock of NelsonDenis248 == |
|||
Dear Bearian, |
|||
Thankfully I did not come here to ask a legal question, since I am a lawyer. On December 1, 2008 I edited the article Adam Clayton Powell IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician)&diff=255143973&oldid=253153580 |
|||
On January 30, 2009 I received an indefinite block from you for my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Nelsondenis248 |
|||
This seemed a disproportionate response and I did not understand it, until I saw this entry from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive |
|||
I was not even aware of this Brian Logan/Adam Powell relationship until I saw your post. |
|||
I have no interest in returning to the Adam Clayton Powell article, '''and certainly no interest in embarrassing you.''' I have communicated with the creator of the Powell page, an administrator named [[User:Marine 69-71|Tony the Marine]] and told him the same - that I have no interest in returning to the Powell page. |
|||
I am writing to respectfully request your unblock of NelsonDenis248. I believe [[User:Marine 69-71|Tony the Marine]] will support me in this request. |
|||
Thank you for your consideration. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/216.57.39.35|216.57.39.35]] ([[User talk:216.57.39.35|talk]]) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:13, 28 June 2011
Archives
- Archived discussions
For older discussions on this User's talk page, see
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarchToJune2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJulyToMidAugust2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateAugust2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlySept2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateSept2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEarlyOct2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesLateOct2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesNov2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2007,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesEndJanFeb2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarch2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAprilMay2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJune2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuly2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOct2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesNov2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2008,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFebMar2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesApr2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMayJune2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJulyAug2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesSept2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNovDec2009,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFeb2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMar2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAprMay2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJuneJuly2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesAugSept2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNov2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2010,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2011,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesFeb2011,
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMarApr2011,and
- User talk:Bearian/ArchivesMay2011.
- See also these two archives of RfAs from the first 11 days of each month:
New stuff
not a test
what's wrong with those edits? they removed all the "original research" from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFI2013 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
oh i just saw you're the one who put in all that info! ("original research") sorry! but still i think u should leave it to neutrals to assess your reasearch/content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFI2013 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
...for the barnstar It was a most rewarding effort. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Compulsive hoarding
The section that I deleted may be well-cited, but it has nothing to do with compulsive hoarding and was added very recently. I have broached the subject of its deletion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLA87 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Prop. deletion
- (1) One talk page section will suffice; three are rather unnecessary.
- (2) If you disagree with the proposed deletion; then go ahead and remove it; that's the way the system works. I am very familiar with relevant policies; statements like "do some basic research" add little value. Let me stress that all of these are judgment calls; I tagged something like 80 articles, and if other editors think that eight of those are worth a full Articles for Deletion discussion, I consider that a good batting average. Again, that's the way the system works.
- (3) Re notification: If you read the policy, you'll see that notifying article creators is "ideal"; it is not required. Further, it is explicitly not necessary in "cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia." You will find that the vast majority of the articles tagged during my round of proposed deletions were created by inactive editors (these articles were from two years old or older in most cases). Neutralitytalk 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I see you have a very good percentage of being correct, but we all miss some things sometimes. Bearian (talk)
The Bronx Company
HI Bearian. Thanks for stopping by my talkpage. I did a quick search and didn't find anything I could add from a reliable resource. I'll look again before the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Voting
Candidates are here. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Collaboration on US Supreme Court case article improvement ?
Hi Bearian, I have greatly admired your contributions in the area of WP:LAW on Wikipedia. :)
- I recently decided (diff) to shift my focus away from other topics and away from DYK — and focus on quality improvement of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases. Would you care to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive — and perhaps start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but I expect to be too busy to do a lot of serious editing until after July 5th. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
FA writer Wehwalt has some ideas, please see User_talk:Wehwalt#Collaboration_on_US_Supreme_Court_case_article_improvement_.3F. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- We are likely going to collaborate on Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, if you are interested. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
fyi, as I mentioned you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You're invited to the New York Wiknic!
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!
To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Thank you!
Thanks for your kind words! (Sorry to hear you didn't get the notice in time, but I appreciate your support. :-)) Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you like barnstars
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For cleaning up and helping save Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, I award you this Editor's Barnstar! m.o.p 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
Seriously, great job! Cheers, m.o.p 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Request for Unblock of NelsonDenis248
Dear Bearian,
Thankfully I did not come here to ask a legal question, since I am a lawyer. On December 1, 2008 I edited the article Adam Clayton Powell IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician)&diff=255143973&oldid=253153580
On January 30, 2009 I received an indefinite block from you for my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Nelsondenis248
This seemed a disproportionate response and I did not understand it, until I saw this entry from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive I was not even aware of this Brian Logan/Adam Powell relationship until I saw your post.
I have no interest in returning to the Adam Clayton Powell article, and certainly no interest in embarrassing you. I have communicated with the creator of the Powell page, an administrator named Tony the Marine and told him the same - that I have no interest in returning to the Powell page.
I am writing to respectfully request your unblock of NelsonDenis248. I believe Tony the Marine will support me in this request.
Thank you for your consideration.
216.57.39.35 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)