User talk:Bearian/ArchivesJan2008

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1

Hi, Bearian. You seem to have participated twice at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1 I have boldly indented your second participation. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixing typos on my RfA Standards page

Thanks so much! :-) I was wondering if anyone actually paid any attention to that. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Hi Bearian. I saw that you recently banned the IPs *99.133.177.249 (talk · contribs) and *68.123.109.90 (talk · contribs) and since this was shortly after my COI report I'm assuming it was in relation to the CRSQA article. Although I appreciate your quick action I have been trying to clean up that article and now that those two IPs seem to be restricted *Ghagele (talk · contribs) has now recently undone the update. I'd appreciate it if you could step in as I don't want to play games with this user. Please note that on his talk page he has already been warned about editing the CRSQA article due to a previous COI problem, and you can see the COI report I posted on the talk page of the CRSQA article. Thanks. --SirDecius (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bearian. --SirDecius (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although I have attempted to open a discussion with Ghagele (talk) about the CRSQA changes, he has once again edited the CRSQA article despite the warnings. --SirDecius (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian,

The vandalism at the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (USAEyes) article by SirDecius continues. I have repeatedly restored the article after the vandalism, however SirDecius returns to vandalize again.

Here are examples:

SirDecius adds a link to usaeyes.info. Let's start with the domain name itself. USAEyes is a registered trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. The organization has not authorized any other party to use its mark. The domain usaeyes.info is subject to a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy arbitration National Arbitration Forum case FA0712001118174.

SirDecius added a link to usaeyes.info as "a website created specifically to discount the claimed merits of CRSQA certification and provides criticism of the CRSQA, Hagele as well as many of the surgeons listed on the CRSQA website."

The owner of the website usaeyes.info is Brent Hanson of Seattle Washington. Mr. Hanson is currently being sued in California Superior Court, Sacramento (Case 06AS00839 Hagele v. Hanson) for defamation including defamation published at the usaeyes.info website. Mr. Hanson is also being sued for invasion of privacy for publishing my personal identity including Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, driver's license number, etc. on other websites he owns and/or controls.

Mr. Hanson previously used the Internet to attack a surgeon in Dallas Texas, violating a court order and was sentenced to 18 months in jail for contempt. Mr. Hanson used eGold accounts, an offshore registrar, and an offshore web host in an attempt to hide his violation of the court's order.

Mr. Hanson and the usaeyes.info website are not reliable or objective sources of information.

SirDecius adds to a criticism section about the organization "publicly criticized for promoting CRSQA certification by spam as well as profiting from a certification system that bears little merit to the patient." This statement is not in any manner neutral, is unsubstantiated, is casting aspersions against an organization accredited by the Health on the Net Foundation and named as a reliable source of information in US Congressional testimony and has been cited by dozens of news articles from NPRto USNews & World Report to Oprahfor the patient advocacy it provides. I have personally testified before the FDA regarding patient safety issues. I have personally researched and responded to thousands of patient questions regarding Lasik and similar vision correction surgery.

SirDecius added that I have "been the subject of criticism and his detractors have claimed that since he is neither a medical doctor nor an ophthalmologist that he does not have the credentials to accredit doctors involved in refractive surgery." We do not accredit doctors. We certify that patient outcomes meet pre-defined standards. I facilitate the policies regarding surgeon certifications that are approved by a governing Board of Trustees with the assistance of a Quality Standards Advisory Committee that includes ophthalmologists and optometrists. This facilitating the policies is primarily statistical and does not require a doctorate. Furthermore, the statement by SirDecius is unsubstantiated.

SirDecius added "questions relating to the non-profit nature of the CRSQA have arisen since it claims to hire an 'Executive Director' (Glenn Hagele) who is paid for profit by the CRSQA to manage the 'day-to-day activities'"

This statement is not neutral and is unsubstantiated. I am a paid employee of the organization and function as Executive Director. The conditions of my employment are determined by the organization's governing Board of Trustees. It appears that SirDecius is implying that there is an impropriety in a nonprofit organization paying its employees. There is not. There are thousands of nonprofits who pay their employees.

Additionally, SirDecius removed relevant links that substantiate claims about my litigation against critics of the organization and me, specifically litigation against Brent Hanson in California and a separate litigation against Mr. Hanson's former housemate Lauranell Burch.

A review of the activities of SirDecius indicates that with one exception, this person's entire activities have revolved around vandalizing and attacking me or USAEyes. Also, the entity SirDecius suddenly appeared shortly after I brought litigation against Ms. Burch. The timing is, I believe, relevant.

SirDecius apparently has a greater understanding than I regarding the policies and proceedures of Wikipedia and has successfully used those policies in an attack upon me, including getting the Glenn Hagele article removed.

I respectfully request that SirDecius and his relevant IP address(es) be banned from editing the USAEyes article, the article be protected in its pre-vandalism state, and very serious consideration be made to the permanent removal of edits by SirDecius. I ask that you use your knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures to assist me with this situation.

Ghagele (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, Thank you for your kind attention to the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance article. How do I go about getting the Glenn Hagele article restored? It too was subject to SirDecius vandalism.

Ghagele (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for deleting the Glenn Hagele article can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Hagele. At the moment, the contents of the deleted article are still visible on a mirror site at http://www.answers.com/Glenn_Hagele. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bearian. I am uncertain as to why the current revision of the CRSQA article is the one that is now in requirement of discussion prior to edits as the current incarnation is almost entirely constructed by the IP addresses that have been subsequently banned for their edits and Ghagele after he was warned not to make edits by yourself and another editor. I suggest you first revert to the version I implemented which includes important information pertaining to the criticism section and then permit the discussion of changes. I have no personal interest in the article and so if it becomes unreasonably difficult to maintain some lack of bias in regards to editing it (due to Ghagele's interference and non-compliance with the multiple COI warnings he has received) I will likely not involve myself in further matters relating to it. Thanks, regardless of what you decide. --SirDecius (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello SirDecius. The information that you have sometimes added to the article may have problems with our rules on biographies of living persons. The reason is that any information critical of a living person is expected to have very strong references in published sources. (A link to a privately-operated criticism site is usually not acceptable as evidence). Though I agree the present article is not neutral, and needs rework, the idea of restoring one of your previous versions is not appealing. If you are willing to disclose whether you know Glenn Hagele or his Center in real life, that would simplify further discussions of COI. This is optional, but it might speed up the fixing of the article, and whatever you may have to tell us, Wikipedians will feel more comfortable they are not unnecessarily involving themselves in an external legal dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning template

What prompted you to do this?

If you really must issue a warning template to an editor in good standing and you haven't just reverted one of their edits, it'd be very helpful if you specified what it is that you're objecting to.

Cheers ---Dweller (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruce's Airport

First of all, great job on adding airport articles. But is this one really notable? Also, I think it contains wrong information, e.g., near Milwaukie. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good day Bearian, please see The Bruce's Airport talk page. Thanks, --Trashbag (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding all these articles has been kind of interesting, such as finding an airport with a land runway and a water runway. Pretty cool...--Trashbag (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Direction Five

Hello Bearian, Please give us a chance to develop our page on wikipedia. You are acting like a rabbit… This page is not an advertisement it’s a information (informative). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directionfive (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirohito article

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Sorry about the standard template warning, but I feel it was necessary to give you a quick heads up that your actions at Hirohito could possibly end up in a block for you. So don't get mad at me. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wish I knew for what exatly you blame me. My actions at "Hirohito" were only to rename the article back to "Emperor Shōwa" after someone else reverted it to "Hirohito". The first move was done by another user. It was made after a vote that indicated seven votes for the move, zero against (see here). Those who reverted my changes didn't even read the articles, replacing "Emperor Shōwa" by "Showa Emperor", "Emperor Hirohito", "[[Hirohito]], the [[Showa Emperor|Showa]] emperor" or even non sense sillyness. Never by "Hirohito" ! So why do you speak to me about the sandbox? Švitrigaila (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Bearian, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia.

-- AKeen (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth advertising

I've rewritten the article. Please reconsider your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluetooth advertising -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks card

Hello, Bearian, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your double support, I hope I meet your expectations. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghits

What the heck are Ghits, as I've noticed in a message to Chardish? Please reply on my talkpage, as I am not here as often as I'd like. Razorflame (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stonegate Country Club

I agree - we must be at 50% concurrence lately, and I tagged it as such. Feel free to delete it or nominate it for deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please finish the AfD process; your incomplete entry is cluttering the AfD page. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have vandalized NOTHING

And I resent the implication that I have. What we have here are empty charges by admitted User:DanielEng User:Slp1 left-wing radicals who can't handle anyone adding information to a page that THEY don't want in the page. This is a movement which within this decade proclaimed that ANY LIE is good if it helps to achieve the long-term political goals. How DARE you threaten to block me without even attempting the simplest investigation of facts.

If you want to block somone, DanielEng is violating 3 revert rule. 99.130.34.227 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Since his edits were reverted a few days ago, he's been ticked at a bunch of people. He seems to be on a particular kick about me (I'm apparently an evil Commie who's out to sabotage him personally, and I think he's mentioned me in every edit summary and message) but he's also left nasty messages for just about every editor who has reverted him or left him a warning. Judging from his talk page (he's also user Akulkis, and admits he's the IP user), he's had similar clashes and gone after other editors this way in the past. I did file an ANI (thank you for answering my message there), but apart from that, I don't know what else to do about this. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• nods* Agreed. If he starts in again, though, where would be the place to take this? Not that I have any real desire to see someone blocked, but I also think his harassment and incivility is a bit much. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

Ok... so i correct someone's editing and you're calling me a moron. What was wrong with what I did? 68.45.49.56 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding message about Houston Intermodal Transit Center/ station

Thanks for asking and not deleteing!!

The intermodal transit cetenter is the actual amtrak/intercity station complex, while the intermodal transit cetner station refers to the Metrorail station that will connect it to the redline. much the same way Grand Centeral terminal = train station, Grand Centeral Station = subway.

(I hope this is the right way to respond, im kind of a newbie at wikipeda)

-b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btheriot (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I am leaving. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlescrubber (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Bearian - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop, and I will try to ensure that any boldness in which I engage with it is entirely sufferable. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Username noticeboard

I should've known that. Should I remove the report? It's obviously not as derogatory as I first assumed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's basically full of contractions and colloquial slang. Sometimes I wonder how far the English language will continue to evolve :-P - I best be off. Thanks for your help! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reporting names instead of doing the blocking yourself? Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Theraplay

Re your edit adding Theraplay to the list of names for attachment therapy, the other names in that particular list are all sourced from the Taskforce report which is cited at the end of that sentence. They do not name Theraplay. It may indeed be the case that Theraplay is a form of attachment therapy but that would need a source. Do you have one that we could put in? Thanks. Fainites ^barley 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My list of administrators..

Hehe, well you've done nothing that has caught my eyes yet (must be careful with words now), but who knows, perhaps if you delete some of the remaining images that I've bothered to add, or complain about something else I've done in the past, then you might be able to make the list ;o) - or if you want to be on it, just let me know and you're on it. It's not a really negative list anymore, actually.. although it probably can be seen as such by some. KnatLouie (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Filippella AfD

Bearian, I thought you might want to look at this sockpuppetry case and perhaps reconsider your vote. It seems obvious to me that this is a clear case of COI and AUTO. While I don't doubt that this subject may at some point in the near future achieve notability, at the moment I don't think it meets the threshold that your examples provided, where the works went to A-tier festivals and were reviewed by a sizable quantity of significant critics. This article, however, reeks of personal PR. Film students with articles have a better case for notability when nominated for significant awards such as Short Film Oscars. Thanks for your time, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hedonic damages

Thanks very much. The topic is obviously of note, but wa apparently taken over by Dr. Smith for his own self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for stating your rationales why I should not be granted this time and I'll try my best to deal with it. I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Acalamari granted me the rollback tool. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peters Cartridge Company

Hi. Could you take a look at the Peters Cartridge Company, which I mentioned to you in December? A lot of the material seems like OR, especially when you look at the first two sources listed under References. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, brother! Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

UST Global, Once again need your help

Dear Bearian,

After a gap of two months, I am coming back to you seeking your advice due to the recent edits/additions in the UST Global page in Wikipedia.

The recent major updates in the UST Global Wikipedia page are additions in the company introduction paragraph and a new category “Controversy” in the Contents box. All these changes were made by the user Stevejross. I would like to bring your attention to these recent changes.

All these changes made by user Stevejross in the UST Global page was based on a press release on another website http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId5/ReturnId37/contentid50197 This is an external link not connected to UST Global which is categorized under a new title called “Controversy”. I haven’t seen a category titled “Controversy” in any similar pages in Wikipedia. Also I doubt that this press release was an old release that was published in the www.hklaw.com website during the month of OCT, 2007. I have online evidence for this press release from Google cached pages. At present this press release is dated Jan 15, may be due to request by their client “Steve Ross”.

Using this press release link, Wiki user “Stevejross” is trying to self-promote him in this page. This is a clear case of COI where a user has used an external, non related link to the subject of the page, to promote private or commercial interests (Self-promotion). Adding to this above point this particular press link is not helpful and non informative to the knowledge represented in the UST Global Wiki page. As per the Wikipedia policy any user who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

In addition, if you could please go through the press release link, the last line states that "Prior to establishing US Technology Resources, Ross was a co-founder in 1992 of Catalina Marketing U.K. Pvt." And the best part is that, I couldn’t find Ross any where as co founder in the Catalina web records. Ross needs him to be featured as Cofounder or Founder in both the companies using this new, republished, Press release as there is no other primary or secondary evidence for him to prove this.

Other points that I would mention here in adherence to Wiki policies are that the user Stevejross through his updating in the UST Global wiki page is trying to establish his minority views that should not be represented at all. There is no effort from his side to present these conflicting views fairly. Also he has altered the article structure itself (ref: Wikipedia: Manual of Style) to attract additional attention using a separate title “Controversy” inside the category. This gave undue weightage to the new topic and the related content in this page giving high visibility to his views.

As a last point I would like to state that, by using the press release user Stevejross is trying to support his edits in the UST Global wiki page painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; gave important or more dubious than a neutral view would present by altering the article structure.

I haven’t done any changes to the recent edits by the user Stevejross in the UST Global wiki page, as I would humbly request you to advice and guide me to present a neutral point of view for the contents based on the subject in this page.

Sincerely Chella123 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

UST Global Page - Appreciate Your Help & Assistance

Dear Bearian,

I have from the beginning taken the advise of personnel associated with Wikipedia very seriously. In November of 2007, the advise given to me by user EdJohnson was to make sure that my founding of US Technology Resources, L.L.C. (dba UST Global) was verifiable by another website. As a result of this advise, I have since worked to make sure this information is supportable, and verifiable.

On November 21 of 2007, my lawyer went before the Supreme Court of California. On December 3, 2007 the Supreme Court of California ordered that "The Final Arbitration Award be, and hereby is, confirmed in all respects; ...."

- The Arbitration is now a California public record.

The Arbitration panel, in their Interim Arbtration Award to Steve Ross, and their Final Arbitration Award document stated the following in the paragraph labeled BACKGROUND:

"Steve Ross founded USTR to engage in the business of providing Internet Technology ("IT") outsourcing services to US-based companies through the use predominantly of less expensive IT labor in India. USTR formally came into existence as an LLC in October 1998. Until June 1999, USTR was 100% Owned by Ross."

The above paragraph is part of the Final Arbitration Award, and has been confirmed by the California Supreme Court in "All Respects."

The law firm, Holland & Knight, as officers of the Law took careful steps with the statements that were published as part of their January 2008 press release: http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId5/ReturnId37/contentid50197

The edits added to the section called CONTROVERSIES was already existing on Wikipedia's UST Global page.

Thank you for your careful consideration of the above.

Respectfully,

Stevejross (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

my RfA

Thanks for understanding my point of view. I hope it didn't come across as pointing you out in particular... I just needed a place for me to directly respond underneath the nearest Oppose vote that reflected that issue. Hope you had a great day! Happy evening? lol - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Publimedia.nt

If you would be so kind as to block? Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Bearian/ArchivesJan2008, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Yes, I do that from time to time. I have been patrolling short pages lately - keeping out of the closing of Afd's: too much drama at the moment and CSD's too many nutters, spammers, and such who get far too much leeway for my likes. When I come to an redlink geographical one, I try to place a stub in. Have done many villages in England: a whole bunch cutely named Unthank assuring me that this is a thankless task. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's enough of a stub. Cluebot thinks it could be copyvio though, you may want to check that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bearian!

Just wanted to let you know I sent you an e-mail. It's nothing particularly time-sensitive, though, so feel free to check it out when you have a break from fighting the good fight. Thanks! --jonny-mt 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)