User talk:Bearcat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new comments at the bottom of this page, not at the top.

09:21:00, 19 June 2017 review of submission by NeenKaler[edit]

Hi Bearcat,

Thank you for taking the time to review my first full submission. Apologies for it not being up to scratch - I'm still learning :) I hope you can help with a few queries over why the Userbenchmark submission was declined.

Firstly, you made a comment that many of the sources linked were glancing name references. The ZDnet and Sapphire Nation articles (section 4 of this article is dedicated to UserBenchmark - so not such a small reference) specifically and with reasonable depth, illustrate to me that professional PC users recommend Userbenchmark. I would like to understand better why this doesn't indicate notoriety.

Secondly, I can see that there are many more online software reviews of Userbenchmark, similar to Softpedia e.g. Would you reccommend that I add more of these?

And lastly, personally, I use and love this website and was surprised that there was no Wiki article on the topic yet. I know that a large proportion of the PC Master Race Reddit community also use and write about this site on Reddit. And I'm not alone if the Alexa website rankings are anything to go by: where Userbenchmark is currently ranked at 4716th globally and 2624th in the US. I was wondering if you recommended any way to incorporate this info into the Wiki article?

Once again, thanks for your time. And I look forward to hearing from you.

Montgomeryshire Architecture[edit]

Because nobody offered a reason not to use "Buildings and structures", and because that's clearly the naming convention, I've closed the "Montgomeryshire Architecture" CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 28) as "move to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire". I've intentionally ignored the Powys-Montgomeryshire issue, since that's not so clear-cut, and I've started a new discussion specifically to address that issue. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 17 (bottommost section) to offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Airport Road article deletion[edit]

Why was the article deleted based on a "longest street in the world" claim? Nowhere was that even mentioned in the article--as I stated in the commentary! Transportfan70 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External Links: Ramadan Ramadani[edit]

Hello Bearcat -- Is your objection to the use of a YouTube as an External Link, or its use in general? This article will fall flat without the references I think are in that video. I don't speak the language, so I cannot be sure what's there. We need a native speaker to take a look. I saved this article at least temporarily. It would be sad to see the record of an artist just disappear. Rhadow (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Projet Franco-ontarien : votre participation à Wikimania[edit]

Bonjour, dans le cadre d’un projet d’étude coordonné par Seeris de la présence des Franco-ontariens dans Wikipédia, nous organisons une rencontre de discussion lors de Wikimania Montréal. Il s’agit de mieux comprendre comment les Franco-ontariens sont représentés dans l’encyclopédie, et quelles sont les motivations des contributeurs qui ont édité les articles du portail Franco-ontarien. Serez-vous présent lors de cet évènement ? Si oui, seriez-vous intéressés à faire partie de la rencontre ? Karinemt (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Burroughs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Burroughs 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/Gary Burroughs until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Madg2011 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Re:Hockey AFD's[edit]

That was not me. I use Twinkle for AFD's [1] and [2] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nfitz (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Promo Direct[edit]

Hi Bearcat, my page Promo Direct has nominated for deletion, was asked to contact you to re-create the page. Please help me to make this live. imshakal (talk) 6 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imshakal (talkcontribs)


Just a note with regards to this edit. The IMDb is user-generated content, and thus not a reliable source. Per {{infobox film}}, we give priority to reliable databases (such as the AFI Catalog of Feature Films, British Film Institute, and European Audiovisual Observatory) and trade magazines (such as Variety and Screen International). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hay Fever[edit]

Hi. I see that you added information about a revival, but I have removed it for now because of a number of problems: First, the references are incomplete, missing the name of the writers of the articles and the page numbers in the newspapers on which the articles appeared (or, in the alternative, a url where one can find each article). Second, you did not indicate if the production was mounted by a professional producer, or was just something the family did for fun. Third, you did not mention what theatre the production premiered in, and how many performances were included in that production before it when on tour. Fourth, you did not indicate where the production toured in 2003, and to what theatres, for how many performances. All of this information is needed to determine if the production was a significant, long-running professional production that satisfies WP:NOT. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bighead[edit]

Hi Bearcat, While I don't think you created this article, I did see where you made a major contribution,so I wanted to let you know.

Proposed deletion of The_Bighead[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article The_Bighead has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Geejayen (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Luther "Snake Boy" Johnson[edit]

Could you please take a look at this article, User talk:Babrinson77, and the most recent internal e-mail sent to me by said editor. I do not want to get into an edit war, but it seems that the other editor can not take "no" for an answer. Plus, there appears to WP:COI and the matter of the abusive and derogatory language used in the e-mail. The editor is seemingly only interested in the above topic. I am not happy and would rather an admin took a peek, as there seems to be only the two of us regularly contributing to Johnson's article. This matter has rumbled along for several months now. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sugarboy (musician)[edit]

Good day Bearcat, I received a notification that the page i created has been deleted Sugarboy (musician). According to my research Sugarboy AFD, the page was nominated and deleted due to it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO the AFD discussion was closed 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC). Actually i don′t really know were it all started from so i cant give all information about Sugarboy first deletion. I recreated the page Sugarboy (musician) I was not active to contest for the speedy deletion, I just came online and found out that the page has been deleted via a speedy deletion, that is why it was deleted secondly. I believe the page was not supposed to be deleted it does not matter either the page was previously deleted. The deleted page Sugarboy (musician) passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO I believe its different from the previous deleted version because i made a research on Sugarboy Wikipedia previous deleted page on Google Search Engine. When it comes to WP:GNG, Sugarboy (musician) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent [3], [4] He has been discussed in newspaper like Premium Times [5] like Naij [6] Especially The Punch Newspaper [7] [8]. Talking about WP:MUSICBIO Sugarboy (musician) passes few rules mentioned including his Musical Awards [9] which he has been nominated and won, more references can be find on Google Search Engine.

I hope with this point of view Sugarboy (musician) can be restored and also other user who are interested in the deletion of Sugarboy (musician) should be informed about the references.

Regards --Willi882 (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Category for films[edit]

Hi Bearcat, I was checking the films category tree under Category:Films by technology and we do have a Category:Camcorder films, which could very well take in all the gadget made films, possibly with a wider definition, or if necessary, by renaming it accordingly. I am leaving for a wikivacation tomorrow and I won't be able to comment any futher at the CfD, but I think it's really worth considering, so I leave it up to you. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 17:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

John Delaney presidential campaign, 2020[edit]

I asked the closer of the AfD to explain the closing, and the reply after a week is the empty set.  I believe this should go to DRV, as the discussion was progressing, and there was no need to cut off the discussion.  But I would like to verify that there is some support for reviewing this closing.  Do you support re-opening this AfD?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for your descriptive note on the wiki practices. I do understand where you are coming from and I apologize for any inconvenience my actions would have caused. I appreciate the feedback and will let my team and the morning show know. Dean.cole (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ed Janiszewski[edit]

Hello. I notice that you nominated Ed Janiszewski for deletion a short time ago and that the article was indeed deleted after a short discussion. This decision may have been technically correct in the sense that the article, at the time, did not assert the subject's notability ... but the subject is notable, having served on the *Montreal* city council during the brief period when the entire island was amalgamated into a single municipality (evidence: page 21 of this document (which is actually numbered as page 15, following the title page, introduction, etc.); there are also numerous Gazette articles covering his time on council, although they don't appear to be available online any longer).

The article should be restored. I'm not certain if a Request for Undeletion is technically required in this instance, and I'd welcome your suggestion as to the best way forward. CJCurrie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. I'd reviewed a number of policy pages on deletion and un-deletion before writing to you, and since they don't all say exactly the same thing I wasn't 100% certain if a review was necessary in a case like this – WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review says not, but WP:Deletion review doesn't have the same wording, and the third entry under "Deletion review may be used" in the latter article struck me as potentially applicable to this situation. I've seen a number of scenarios over the years where unclear or contradictory policies have led to unnecessary disputes, and I wanted to be sure we were on the same page before moving forward with creating a new article (which I'll do soon).
Just for clarity, is it your view that the same standard would apply to more ambiguous cases – i.e., where the subject isn't automatically deemed to be notable and where the original entry was more than just a two-line stub? I'm not planning to recreate all or even most of the recently deleted pages that I wrote in the mid-2000s – back when, as you've often said, the criteria for notability were quite different – but there are a few cases (e.g., the deleted entry for Bernie Wolfe) where I'm certain there's enough credible material to justify a new, improved, and properly sourced version. If an article like this was deleted for "not asserting notability" but a new version can get the subject over the line, is it your view that this would require a formal review, or would I (or anyone) simply be allowed to start writing?
(Actually, the version of the Bernie Wolfe page that was deleted in February 2017 didn't have much in common with my original version from 2004 ... in any event, my point is that I'm certain it's possible to create a decent, non-promotional version of the page that actually asserts notability.) CJCurrie (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I was labouring under an outdated view of how the system works – thank you for the clarification. I'll start tackling some of the deleted-but-salvageable pages soon. (I imagine the approach you've outlined could be abused, if someone were to constantly create still-dubious-but-marginally-improved versions of deleted pages and force a new afd discussion each time ... though I suppose that would rather quickly lead to an rfc and/or disciplinary action. It should go without saying that I'm not planning to take this approach myself.) CJCurrie (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, Bearcat. I've noticed a fair number of edits by you that resemble this one -- where another editor has mistakenly removed a {{Disambiguation}} template from a page, and then you have come along and tagged it as "Uncategorized." It would be more helpful if you would revert the incorrect edit, or at least replace the Disambiguation template, instead of leaving the pages in this broken state. Thanks for considering this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)