User talk:Bearly541/Archive3

Welcome to Bearly541's Talk Page!

I love seeing that little orange bar that says "You have new messages."

I do ask that you follow some guidelines when leaving me a message:

1. Please be civil.

2. Please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ or by using the automated signature button (the one to the right of "Sign Your Name").

3. [Optional] Smilies (shown below) can be used if necessary.

Please understand if I do not respond immediately. Also please be understanding if I do not answer your message in the order that it was received.

I will ordinarily answer on your talk page, unless requested to do otherwise.

I have the right to delete inappropriate messages. Thank you!

—-- Bearly541

First, special thanks to Randfan and Kyoko for providing these guidelines for me as a template! Second, special thanks to Kyoko for providing me with the status bar on my userpage! Third, special thanks to The Transhumanist for sharing the "smiley" bar. Fourth, special thanks to Seadog for the "contents" tip.

Past Archives: 01~02~03~

Reply

You can edit the TN-FedRep template here: {{TN-FedRep}}. It definitely needs updating today; I might tackle it later if you haven't. I think that's the box you're talking about; please tell me if it's not. Regarding fancyford.com, it was in Ford's article for awhile, but eventually was removed (the website is no longer functioning). I live in Memphis, and have never heard of an RNC attack ad mentioning Allison (was it part of fancyford?). That's not to say that it didn't happen, but I just don't know if it's notable enough to mention in *Ford's* article (but perhaps it should be in Allison's, as her notability seems to be entirely tied to dating the rich and/or powerful). My reasoning is explained by a somewhat unrelated comment on the Ford talk page: "Wikipedia shouldn't be cataloging attack ads by either party" (unless, of course, they rise to a certain level of notability, or, as in the case of the Playboy ads, notoriety). However, Ford's article really needs a "personal life" subsection, and his dating life (including relationship with Allison) could be discussed there. Regarding the Allison article, I think your edits were good. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI is probably what you're looking for. Make absolutely certain that everything is well-sourced per WP:BLP, of course (but I'm sure you already know that). · j e r s y k o talk · 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AUTO is even better. And thank you very much for supporting! I sincerely appreciate it when editors that I've had interaction with here think highly enough of me to support my RFA. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You were right to report at the BLP noticeboard. Whether you're dealing with the subject of the article or her publicist, the editor in question has conflict of interest problems. If you've received a specific legal threat, I recommend reporting at WP:AN/I, too, as legal threats are taken quite seriously and almost invariably lead to indefinite blocks. My best piece of advice at this point is to just take a breather from the article for a few days. It's ok if it isn't exactly where it should be for a small amount of time, and it might help you sleep if you don't worry about it for a time. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a somewhat long comment on the Allison talk page, and I hope a constructive conversation with Lillster results. I commented out the green dress picture for now, as it needs to be appropriately [[tagged as a fair use picture. A fair use rationale needs to be placed on the image page, as well. Here is an image I uploaded under a fair use tag with an accompanying rationale that should be helpful as a guide. If this is too unfamiliar for you, let me know and I'll help out. :) · j e r s y k o talk · 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Julia Allison Dispute

Hi - this is Julia Allison. I have no idea why you keep editing my wikipedia page, but please, before you add in facts that are absolutely untrue, check with the actual source. I'm happy to speak with you, but this is ridiculous. What's going on?? - please email me at julia@juliaallison.com thanks.

The Black Parade album assessment

You recently assessed The Black Parade article as a B-class article. I would like to know what can be to further increase the quality and help it become a good article. If you could leave me a line on my talk page giving some suggestions that would be great. Thank you!  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I have made the changes that you requested. Can you please look over it again? I would like to nominate it for a Good Article, however, I would like to make sure all necessary changes are made and if there is anything else I could do to further improve the quality. Thanks again!  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted

Per your request! | Mr. Darcy talk 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please sign userpages

I did sign the card :) but it was one of those expanding cards, so you had to click 'show' at the side in order to see the rest of the message. Was it hidden or malfunctioning when you checked it? If so, then I have to correct it soon :)

Thanks anyways, lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The template for the greeting is here. Eeek, if this doesn't work for you, then it won't work for others either. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that. :) I changed around the page that it lead to, so now it's more of community-spirit-promotion page. The Mfd was all so tragic. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

and btw, the pink flowerish thing around your Wikipedia logo is really pretty. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's good. Thanks for letting me know it works :) I was going to dig into the code to look for where it went wrong. And, "yes please", to the flower logo. Thanks, lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aww, thanks for the flower! It's absolutely lovely! How did you get the idea for it in the first place? --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks again. Anyways, I'm out for the night. Good night/morning/afternoon or whatever it is in your timezone. :) --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 04:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Greek Life Template 2.0

OK, I've added ratings and ranking to the proposed template for Fraternities and Sororities, with the requirements to be found on the appropriate page. We're waiting on a transparent picture; is there anything else to be done to this template? I'd like to give it another week or so before making it an official template. Just leave some comments on the template talk page for the template. —ScouterSig 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Bearly...

Oh, Bearly! I just your page not long ago, and I completely sympathize! Of course I can't completely understand the nasty "everythings" that has been going on in your life, but I honestly and sincerely hope that you'll be better soon - that this drama would all be over for you. You're in my prayers, lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Invictus–a poem learned by all Alpha pledges, now suitable for a sad and wonderful AKA sister. I'll looking for your speedy and valuable return to wikipedia.--Ccson 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Don't leave Wikipedia! You're appreciated, even if others don't express it explicitly. About the whole Julia Allison scenario, I think you just need to step back for a little while, and let others just finish correcting stuff. I suggest taking a long wikibreak and perhaps even to find a good friend or even a social worker and just tell them what's been going on. I promise that you'll feel much better after you share your stresses and burdens with someone. I really hope everything will be okay for you soon. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I Love New York

Yes, they should be on seperate pages to cause less confusion. Many shows have differnt pages for their epsiodes. DUH Jtervin 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have passed my bar exam, and my "specialty" is trusts and estates and estate planning law. I also wrote a law review article on a specific issue in copyright law that was published during my final year of law school (which was last year). There are several other Wikipedian lawyers, as the category Wikipedian lawyers attests to. There are at least two (probably more) other lawyer administrators, both of whom contribute a LOT more than I do. My contributions are actually somewhat low compared to a few other users that have been here for about two years.

Your last e-mail concerned me. You seem to be assuming, without any evidence, that I am someone I am most certainly not. Remember, Bearly, that you were the one that asked me to get involved at Julia Allison. I wouldn't have been involved otherwise. I understand you weren't satisfied with my focus on WP:BLP over WP:AUTO. But frankly, Allison was completely correct to point out that some of the article was negative material that was poorly sourced. Yes, she shouldn't have been editing her own article. But she stopped doing so after it was made clear to her that she shouldn't be doing so. And I think you understand the importance of BLP now, right?

But why in the world are you assuming I'm "Harold"? Because I've edited the Tennessee politics articles? Think about this: I edited the Tennessee United States Senate election, 2006 article all throughout election day in November while "Harold" was (I suspect) going around the state campaigning.

Look, I'm not "Harold". Got it? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Crzrussian, who I understand you've been in contact with, can confirm I'm not "Harold". So can User:Dozenist and User:Zantastik. You need to learn to assume good faith. I don't know what message you are talking about in your last post on my talk page, but I can assure you it was not me. Remember my name? It shows up in my e-mails. Now check here and see if you see a familiar name. So will you please stop these allegations regarding my identity that are the result of bad faith and insufficient evidence? Look, from your user page I can tell you're under a lot of stress. Please don't take it out on fellow Wikipedians, however. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Jersyko in real life. He is not "Harold". His name is not "Harold". Please, have some courtesy and leave him alone. - Dozenist talk 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of "identity theft"? What the hell? · j e r s y k o talk · 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough

You have harassed enough people. Leave Jersyko alone. Post again on his page, and I will block you for harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TEMPLAR KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sorry

Again, I had a manipulative boyfriend who had multiple personalities. He said to me through e-mail that he was Jersyko. I am not harassing him, I am just looking to confirm. I forwarded both e-mails to my e-mail address and the IP addresses were different. Please look at the circumstances before you threaten to block people, Killer THANK YOU! Bearly541 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I think you need to read that policy as well, Killer, because you have been VERY rude to me in multiple occasions. This is mainly why I decide to not contribute to Wikipedia.Bearly541 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen carefully: You are harassing other editors. Stop. If you think another editor is your ex, or the King of Siam, it does not give you the right to harass them. If you feel I have been rude, feel free to pursue Dispute resolution. This is the third time of which I am aware that you have "left Wikipedia forever" and if you stay gone for 4 hours or 4 years, you still cannot harass other editors. If you post on Jersyko's talk page again, I will block you. If you paste another spurious vandal warning on another innocent editor's page, I will block you. Are we clear? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for wasting my time and your apparent rudeness. Bearly541 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you heed KC's advice regarding your behaviour and how it is likely to be perceived by the community as a whole. From what I can see, you are indeed harassing other editors and engaging in blockable offences. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, fine, but stick to the editing. If you are going to persist in your current behaviour (and let's be honest, this is not the first time), I would recommend that you do indeed "leave Wikipedia forever". •Jim62sch• 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rfc does not mean "ban"

Correct that on your user page, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good bye

If you're truly leaving this time, I wish you well. I know we've had our differences in the past (like when you flipped the shit on me a few months back, haha :) ), but I still admired the work you did around here. But, really, if you're gone, that sucks; if you stay, hope to see you around. Best of luck to you. Take these words of Alfred Tennyson with you in life:

[F]ollow knowledge like a sinking star,

Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

Adieu, Metros232 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Contact information

I am going to remove this (again) - having this is not in line with an encylopedia article and makes it look like an advert or fly sheet - it certainly won't help in achieving FA status. Just having an external link to a website or such like will provide any necessary contact points, without polluting the articles. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Comments such as the one left by 172.197.103.139 are rude and annoying, and you are well within your rights to remove them (along with your attack on Jersyko) as you did here[1] but they are NOT VANDALISM. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about New Year is that it lasts until March

• 
  Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

It's good that you know when it's time to move on and leave Wikipedia. I know that many Wikipedians can be quite...un-Wikipedian. And trust me, I've been through many difficult situations on this project. Sometimes, people just feel that Wikipedia isn't for them. No matter if you will come back or not, remember that there will always be people who will remember you. I will keep this page watched.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you ever come back, drop in eh? We'll miss you, and you won't be forgotten. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Message for KC, since she rv'ed because of "trolling": Thank you for editing my Userpage

Even though I did not ask you to edit my userpage, thanks anyway (sarcastically). If you removed my comment as a personal attack on my userpage, then I think it should be fair for me to remove some of your many comments as personal attacks as well, especially the referencing of Wikipedia editors as "idiots." I mentioned WP:BITE because you don't always follow the policy, and you stalk users (and think that they have some vindetta). If I had the time, I would open a RfC on you, because I feel that you continue to violate policy such as WP:BITE and don't assume good faith. Let me explain myself before I leave, cordially.

First, I placed a level four warning on the IP's page, because I thought the edit was vandalism. The issue is squashed because I removed the warning. I used to monitor RC changes at night, because many of the vandalistic occurs late at night ET until the early morning, also ET.

Second, I asked the Beatles user to make a template to keep track of the pages that she made. I didn't see the stub category. I did not realize she was a new user. I was only trying to help. It was not in your place to infringe on my conversation. Your infringement on the conversation made you seem to be a tacky admin instead of helpful.

Third, please take my userpage off your watchlist of people to bully, because I deserve(d) the right to edit, freely, instead of being monitored by people who control freedom of expression (FOE). You have violated FOE by editing my userpage, and I did not appreciate that at all. With your RV, you have disrespected me and Wikipedia as a whole.

Fourth, you shouldn't have reversed my warnings on User:Mykungfu's sockpuppet page. He has been notorious for abusing users and vandalizing pages by using AOL sockpuppets. I can't understand WHY you reversed the warnings after the IP has been BLOCKED 24 HOURS. He may have not vandalized the page, per vandal policy, but he disrupted my page and violated warnings of civilty. Please revert the edits. It's only in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Fifth, please be respectful to other administrators, like Mr. Darcy. Even though you disagree with each other, that does not mean that you have to make a rude comment against his character. He is an admin, just like you, and deserves to be treated with respect.

Moral of the story: You need to have an open mind in your administrative duties on Wikipedia. I hope that this is a lesson for you, because this may come up again with future users.

Furthermore, please don't manipulate the leaving message on my user page. Thank you. Have a great day!

Bearly541 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Opened mediation case on user. Bearly541 12:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're leaving but also opening a mediation case? Bit of a paradox there, don't you think? •Jim62sch• 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am retired, but leaving after the mediation case has been closed. I had several supportive e-mails about not leaving Wikipedia, but I opened this case because I did not want others to experience what I have gone through with this particular administrator. Bearly541 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bearly. I appreciate the last e-mail you sent me, and I'm glad you sent it. I noticed that you have decided to open a mediation case. I encourage you to let bygones be bygones in this situation, however. I understand that you're under a lot of real life stress. Opening a mediation case would likely only add to that stress. I also wanted to tell you that if the case persists, I may comment on it. My comments will not be made out of any personal animus toward you, but rather out of wanting the mediator to have all necessary facts to fairly assess the situation. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think you should have been cordial to send me a reply via e-mail, but obviously you did not do it. I am not totally stressed out to the point of craziness like you or others think. By the way, how is that law practice coming along? Bearly541 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect to hear from you again, and you claimed to have retired from wikipedia, thus I did not respond to your e-mail. I responded here, just now, after seeing that you are not, in fact, completely inactive. My other purpose in commenting here was to make it entirely clear what I will do (i.e. thoroughly comment on the mediation case) if it persists. I just want you to be aware of that, and I want you to know that I absolutely bear you no ill will. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I retired from Wikipedia, and e-mailed you, it would be rather logical for you to respond to the message. I do not check my userpage all of the time, and this is the first time I have checked it since I left. I came here because users e-mailed me and wanted me to return to check on the status of my page, and cleaned up my pages. That's when I noticed that KC changed my userpage. I asked her about it this morning. She removed my message a "trolling." I took an avenue to settle the disputes amongst her and I, which is mediation with an independent party. Bearly541 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the content of your previous e-mail messages as well as the content of your messages on my talk page, I chose not to e-mail you. I would rather our conversations occur entirely on Wiki so that they can bear the scrutiny of other editors. Surely you can understand my concern given our prior interaction. I don't entirely understand why you are so concerned about the fact that I responded here instead of via e-mail regarding your apology, but I plan to drop the subject whether you comment further on it or not. Again, my other reason for commenting here is to make it entirely clear that I will comment thoroughly on the mediation case if it persists, as at least some portion of your interaction with KC was regarding your comments on my talk page (otherwise, I would not have any reason to comment, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree for you to drop the issue. You should have responded with a follow-up e-mail (i.e. acceptance/acknowledgement/forgiveness), but you didn't. This is a non-issue/distraction regarding my edits on Wikipedia, or this case in general. It holds no special value or preference as far as I am concerned. Again, I do not care if you comment on mediation. That's your personal prerrogative. Bearly541 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Bearly. I used to be an administrator, but recently stepped down due to stress. I see you are a little stressed yourself. I don't think you are seeing everything clearly. The administrator you seem to be "targetting", KillerChihuahua, has not wronged you that I can see. In fact she is one of the most level-headed and nicest admins around here in my experience. Your statement on your user page that she wants you to be indefinitely blocked is, I think, flat-out false; you really should either prove that or remove it, since it's kind of a mean accusation if not true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. She removed crz's comment too. RfC is a single step in the banning process.Bearly541 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: "I am retired, but leaving after the mediation case has been closed." Hmm, maybe I should try that in work, "I am retired, but leaving after I get all of the work done that I can't do because I'm retired." •Jim62sch• 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the bold step of opening a mediation, because I wanted to settle the dispute between us, once and for all. I don't care if all of you call me names, criticize me, call your support for KC, etc. However, I felt that we weren't seeing equally on terms in regards to Wikipedia policy, concerning the power of an administrator over a user. However, I won't remove my claim. This is not new, regarding users. And, I feel that this will be a proper way to settle disputes, rather than RfC, because this is an independent committee rather than KC's friends or my friends (bias) commenting on my or her behavior. Bearly541 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)