User talk:Bearcat
Please post new comments at the bottom of this page, not at the top.
Update Ugandan creative activists too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.229.157.163 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Who are you?
Who are you? Im fascinated. Are you an LU prof? Are you M.H.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarmuh (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Springdale
Please review citations on Springdale, Newfoundland and Labrador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMcMaster (talk)
- Are you interested in working on it?
Ping!
Hey did you get my ping a few days ago? I recently got motivated to create Dennis H. Carter and got several tags put on it. I've spent over a week fixing it and kind of need objective editors to see if I've addressed all the concerns. I'd apprecate your input and if you know any editors who work in the Architecture project that would be of help too.ZarhanFastfire (talk)
WVWF
Good Evening-
I am attempting to remove things that we do not wish to be public information such as officers of our company, transaction prices, etc. Also, there are grossly incorrect pieces of information about simulcasts, sister stations, etc. This page has caused me enormous issues to iron out, including vendors reaching out to me in reference to contracts as it relates to simulcasting,etc.
All of our information that we want or desire to have public is on our websites, but that has been removed. I tried one last final time tonight to rectify it.
WVWF does not simulcast with any stations.
WVWF is in Clarksville, TN
Ownership Is the Corporation.
We would like for it to be totally removed if possible.
Thank you so much for your time and assistance.
Thank you, Bryan K. Fowler President, Consolidated Media, LLC and Fowler Media Partners
About 2018 Quebec election
Hi Bearcat!
Stop putting August 29 as the date MNAs stopped being MNAs because of the 2018 Quebec election. August 29 isn't the good date under any standard. The writ of the election was dropped on August 23. Even there, it doesn't matter, as it is known convention that a dissolution of the National Assembly doesn't strip MNAs of their title. They stay on as MNA until the general election. That's why we refer to them as "sitting MNAs" during the election.
Your interpretation would be absurd, as long-standing MNAs would keep being on and off MNA since they were first elected. If you look at all other MNA pages, or federally or for other provinces, your flawed interpretation isn't used anywhere for previous elections.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Proposed bridges in Canada
A tag has been placed on Category:Proposed bridges in Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Lindsay Wong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Based on a singular work that has only appeared on a couple award shortlists, this page's subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability criteria
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
TheAnayalator (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LGBT film festivals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aomori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories in templates
I see from your history some 3-4 years ago that you moved through a string of templates to remove WP:TEMPLATECAT categories. Did you happen to have a systematic way to identify those or did you just bump into them? --Izno (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Macedonian television personalities
A tag has been placed on Category:Macedonian television personalities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing page name
Hi! Recently you have changed the page name of FC Uttarbanga. You are saying that there is no source where the 'Uttar Bongo spelling can be found. But please look at the club logo. There is also a source with this logo. You can find the official spelling in club logo & it is 'Uttar Bongo. The club is well-known as 'Uttarbanga' for pronouncing reason. But the official name is FC Uttar Bongo. Hope you will understand & change the page name to FC Uttar Bongo. Thanks. Diptadg17 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) It has now been moved to the apparently incorrect FC Uttor Bongo, just to complicate matters (and can't be moved back simply (eg by me), as the FC Uttar Bongo redirect has been changed automatically to match that mistake. The logo looks convincing, and a couple of the refs support this too, so perhaps @Bearcat: you could move it back to FC Uttar Bongo. PamD 08:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Abe Piasek
Hi -- I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure where to post this, but since you edited the page, I thought I'd share it with you (I also put it in a talk page about Abe -- at least I think that's what I did)
With respect, I think Abe Piasek is a notable figure -- I intended to put his entry in Holocaust Survivors, which is where he's linked -- not as a notable person in NC. A criticism is that this entry is: "Biography, written like a memorial obituary, of a person whose only apparent notability claim is having been a speaker at local high schools in a single city." This is not correct -- Abe has spoken at cities and military bases throughout NC. He also spoke to a few schools in Florida before he moved to NC. "This is referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like directory entries and YouTube clips and content on the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, and about 50 per cent to purely local media coverage in his hometown media market." His coverage is mainly in local media, but there was also an article from People Magazine about how he met with one of his liberators. "There's nothing "inherently" notable about speaking to youth to discuss your life experiences or accompanying them on a field trip, and the amount of sourcing shown here is not sufficient to make him more notable than the thousands going on millions of other people in the world who've done the same things." Again, with respect, there are fewer than 100,000 Holocaust survivors left (and that's using a broad definition of Holocaust survivor -- if you limit it to people who actually spent time in slave labor camps or concentration camps, you're probably under 25,000 people worldwide). The courage it took for him to tell his story in a cattle car when most survivors will not go near that cattle car makes him extraordinary. I'll add more sources and we'll see what other folks think. --GoldbergHistory (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Idler hatnote
Thanks for your work on The Idler (Canadian magazine). Regarding the removal of the hatnote (diff), I took at look at WP:HAT and found the specific improper use note at WP:NOTAMB. Thanks for that, too, I'm not sure I was aware it. My concern is that The Idler (disambiguation) lists three other magazines/periodicals named The Idler. None of them are Canadian, so you're right about it being fully disambiguated from them, but I still thought it might be useful to provide the link to the DAB page if the reader might be interested in those. What do you think? Would that be more of a See also situation? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Spirit of the North for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spirit of the North is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of the North until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Hallucigenia (album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hallucigenia (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallucigenia (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up
Just letting editors who worked on 2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake know it was proposed for deletion. Comments can be made here Talk:2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake. (You worked on the Draft version) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Illegal immigration to Africa has been nominated for discussion
Category:Illegal immigration to Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Today is the last day of the discussion, time for you to make a final statement and acknowledge the other contributions, in particular that of Michael Bednarek, taking into account the significant change in sources and let us know if you still maintain your request for deletion (and why).--Gisel (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks Sharmila Basnet 08:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
This article was moved twice from draft space to article space, originally by a now-blocked user, and once by a relatively new editor. It was also moved by you to draft space. It doesn't appear to me to satisfy any of the musical notability criteria. I consider move-warring to be very undesirable, and am ready to take it to AFD rather than move-warring it. Please advise me as to whether it is still not ready for article space. If it isn't ready for article space and should be in draft space, the AFD can draftify it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian session musicians
A tag has been placed on Category:Indian session musicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
A heads-up
You nominated Desmond Cole for deletion. Well you nominated the article about Rachel Giese for deletion, in 2017, and then drafted a new version 18 months later.
I hadn't agreed with the deletion of Desmond Cole, and had a google news alert on him, and had been considering contacting you, and discussing with you whether your original concerns had been satisfied. I thought we might agree that one of us should recreate the article.
That's moot. A third party recreated the article a couple of days ago. Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi, in your attempt to delete categories for karlyn percil you also deleted the COI disclosure, please be more mindful of edits to articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Hi, Thank you for the help and clarification. I'll add the categories back as well, since I assume this was done in error.
Thanks again for your help and any further guidance/review would be greatly appreciated -- new editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Question: if the article isn't "good enough" to be on wiki, is it possible that it can just be submitted for deletion if it doesn't follow the criteria? All suggested edits have been made, there are no grounds for deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Further, In the case that it is up for deletion -- it's preferred that the wiki community at large has a say as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, though I do appreciate this information, I must disagree that I cannot move it myself based on this information:
Go live now! If you are a user with 10 or more edits and registered for 4 or more days you can place your article into Wikipedia straight away. However, we still strongly recommend that you use the draft option instead. Important - Always check back in a few days. Your article will be live and it will be checked again for you by a reviewer who may leave some helpful messages for you on the article or on your talk page.
Note: I have already waited, a reviewer has already reviewed the article in question, and suggested edits have already been made. I'd propose that instead of moving it back into draftspace, an experienced reviewer, much like yourself, can provide further constructive feedback and help on the article in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Though I understand that I do have the right for another review, I don't think it warrants exercising that right for this article. If it is mandatory that all articles MUST be reviewed until APPROVAL, please point me to that information as I'm unaware of this rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand your sentiments completely however, if you aren't an AFC reviewer and therefore can't provide a timely review, provide constructive feedback on the contents of the article, or show me where the rule is that says it's required for multiple reviews before going LIVE despite the aforementioned information -- I'm a bit confused as to how you autonomously to determine that it MUST sit in draftspace and put an indefinite block on the article from being moved forward? Wikipedia operates as a community project. The article in question is of someone that risks copyright infringement and with a pending IP case, a block on the movement of the page with no grounds other than it hasn't been reviewed (AGAIN) isn't appropriate. Please clarify if I'm incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bearcat, Based on the above, I'd like to suggest that you forward the article in question to namespace with the block removed. If you can provide any policies or guidelines that can be referenced that explicitly state the mandatory nature of a continuous AFC process, then reasonably, the article can remain in draftspace. If there isn't a resolve to this issue, the next step is to request third party opinions to begin the resolution process. Respectfully, it isn't up to one person to decide what is blocked from being published on a public encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bearcat, firstly, I'd like to say that I do appreciate your continued conversation, as It has helped with understanding your perspective. I'd say however, that it is inappropriate to assume that your interpretation of the rule is the definition of the rule.
"you are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved", not "you are now free to just move the draft into articlespace yourself anytime you want".
This "encouragement" doesn't mean that it is a mandatory rule, and you have failed to provide the rule that says it is so, unfortunately, the excuse that this is no "one-stop" for the rules isn't a good enough explanation. The simple fact that I had the ability, as a user, regardless of how long this account has been made, to initially move the article myself, regardless of if it went through 1 round or 100 rounds of feedback, means that this was in fact allowed. There isn't any button that says "bypass," simply "move."
Further, again regardless of this accounts age, I meet these requirements, which are clear and grant me permission to move the article to mainspace :
Go live now!
If you are a user with 10 or more edits and registered for 4 or more days you can place your article into Wikipedia straight away.
However, we still strongly recommend that you use the draft option instead.
Important - Always check back in a few days. Your article will be live and it will be checked again for you by a reviewer who may leave some helpful messages for you on the article or on your talk page.
Further your questioning of whether or not the page in question meets the requirements of an autobiography is wildly inappropriate. I can confirm that this page is not an autobiography and the COI is enough for the reviewer to note, not you.
If we cannot reach a resolve, I will begin to move this article forward to be discussed as a dispute.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If I may
I read your post at another editor's talk page, regarding the way we might positively construe changes in the available biographical information for BLP cases that failed an early WP notability test. If I may, I would like to bookmark you, so that if I run into such cases, I might call on you to lend a reasonable perspective to discussions that often can be pro forma ("knee jerk") negative. If it is all right with you... Cheers, a former Prof. (editting above board but below radar) 2601:246:C700:19D:B160:B273:E4A3:8B0F (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)