User talk:Bearcat/Archive 11

Tony Penikett

Hey you did you saw the evidence as the reason I need unprotection of Tony Penikett yesterday right?

You don't need "unprotection". I'll look after adding the content you've requested, once I'm able to verify that the information is actually correct and not just some random crap you made up, but that doesn't require total unprotection of the page — it just requires somebody who can get past the editlock knowing what the requested change is. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The dates are confirmed and have been added to the infobox accordingly. Now, was that so hard to do that you couldn't have just provided the requested dates in your original request, instead of turning the whole thing into two months of unproductive disruption? Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So this means I have been respectful editor so you unprotect Tony Penikett and 5th Queens for good?

The need to unprotect either page anymore, now that the desired changes have been made, being...what exactly? Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Penikett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.12.88 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason, or buzz off. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason: add some missing details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.221.16.73 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already updated the only missing details you've offered. How many times are you going to need this explained to you: the edit request process means you provide the specific details you want to see changed, and then somebody who can get past the edit lock will make those changes for you if they're correct and properly sourced. It does not get you total unprotection of a page so that you can just go in and do whatever the hell you want to it, if we don't know in advance what those changes are going to be. If there are further changes that need to be made to either article, then you have to specify what those changes are, so that somebody can actually do something — "I want to change the article myself in ways I'm not willing to explain" is not a valid reason for the total unprotection of a page, and no Wikipedia administrator is ever going to just give that to you. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So you unprotect the article at once for trustworthy editor like me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.221.16.73 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For the last goddamned time, and for the same reasons that you're still not listening to no matter how many times they're explained to you, no. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wnyc

Please see the wnyc talk page Formulairis990 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

almost getting it?

Hi Bearcat. I don't profess to know my way around this site as you do so, perhaps you can help me out. I am trying to regain as much of my life after serving as an elected official-as you may know or can imagine, that is challenging. christine cusanelli Nonetheless, I still would like to update this page with accurate information. I attempted to add information today, and understand now a bit better how to appropriately cite sources, what constitutes as appropriate info etc. I can see you are trying to be as equitable as possible while still trying to convey information you believe ought to be public. I respect that and would like to move a little closer to what I know to be factual and accurate about the work I did as a public servant. Is there a better way to share proposed edits that I have without overhauling what you've written and still be accurate and fair to me as the living individual? I can see I overlooked the culture piece on this site by going ahead and editing.

Wikioncc (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again-still getting the hang of this. thanks for your reply. where to begin? Clearly, Im not very experienced on this site but, I can learn quickly.

Wikioncc (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Penikett

OK fine the real reason I want to unprotect Tony Penikett because I want to improve the article more full source detail an no matter what I do If I was polite editor in Wiki so as 5th Queens as well so that's all I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.132.255.210 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As has been explained to you more times than I can count, this is not valid grounds for total unprotection of the page. What you can do is post the specific details you want to add to the article, with the specific sources that support them, to the talk page as an edit request — and then somebody who can edit the article will make the desired edits for you if they're appropriate. But you do not get to disrupt Wikipedia by constantly posting repeated unprotection requests, and you do not get to harass and threaten administrators who decline them. If a page has been protected, it's been protected for a real reason — so whether you like it or not, posting a proper edit request (i.e. the complete details of the specific information you want added or changed) to the talk page of the article, and accepting that you have to wait until somebody else makes the desired edits for you, is the best you get to hope for in that situation. You do not get to behave in the way you have been, and expect to be rewarded for that. Either post the specific details of a specific change that needs to be made to the article, or go away. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Penikett

• Tony Penikett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Add some missing details. Mo

Again: not happening. You may post, to Talk:Tony Penikett, the specific details that need to be added, so that somebody who can get past the edit lock can make the desired edits — but that's the only option you're getting in this situation and the only option you're ever going to get in this situation. Either do that, or GO AWAY. Those are your ONLY two choices here. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Macy Malone

Hi there. Did you notice that this draft was moved from userspace to mainspace a few days ago. Rather than speedy deletion, did you consider moving it back to userspace or perhaps draft space? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a stale draft that hadn't been touched by anyone since 2011 until the page move. The rule is that drafts need to eventually get either moved into mainspace or deleted, so there's no point in just reuserfying a page that's been stale for five years. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any such rule, so if you can point me to it I'd be grateful. Also "eventually" is a rather imprecise term :) I'm sure you are aware that applying mainspace CSD to drafts which were not ready for mainspace is somewhat controversial and can be seen as a misapplication of the speedy deletion criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The page wasn't in draftspace or userspace — it was in articlespace, and thus had to be judged by articlespace standards. There's no hard deadline on how much improvement time a draft gets before it can be deleted, so it's impossible to be more precise than "eventually", but a draft that hasn't been touched in five years quite clearly falls on the wrong side of the line. And at any rate, draftspace or userspace pages can be deleted by the same criteria that apply to articlespace pages — if the draft were still relatively current (and still in draftspace), then the advertorial tone and total lack of any non-primary sourcing that I identified would be given a reasonable amount of time for cleanup, but a page that hasn't been touched in five years doesn't get a permanent exemption from ever having to go if it's not up to snuff. There's always the WP:REFUND option if someone actually does come along at a later time genuinely wanting to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

HHead

added a link pointing to My Bloody Valentine

João Pinheiro, Minas Gerais

added a link pointing to Blacks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

CUDA

Since you were the admin who protected CUDA about a year ago, figured I'd let you know that editing has subsided signficantly on this page, and "pending revision" protection can be removed. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting entry - Abhishek Verma

Abhishek Verma

Thank you for your note regarding Abhishek Verma (arms dealer/businessman). Please note that I did not hijack any page, infact, the Abhishek Verma profile I had uploaded yesterday was actually the profile which was created originally by my associates in 2012 on Wikipedia which you can easily refer to by going into the history of that article or delve deep into Wiki user pages.

In 2013 or 2014, the other Abhishek Verma (archer) hijacked Abhishek Verma (arms dealer's page) and put up his own content while deleting Abhishek Verma arms dealer's content.

Kindly note, as per the dates of birth of the two gentlemen, Abhishek Verma arms dealer is 48.5 years old whereas Abhishek Verma archer is just 26, thus 4 years back he would have been 22 years and not achieved success in life as much as the other Abhishek Verma arms dealer. Therefore, in my opinion the pages should be named as below:

Abhishek Verma (arms dealer) page to be searched and available as 'Abhishek Verma'

and

Abhishek Verma (archer) page to be searched and available as 'Abhishek Verma (archer).

We should give priority to seniority to living personalities by age, fame and their social and financial status as well as number of google hits they receive. Abhishek Verma arms dealer has in excess 1 million google hits and the web is full of his photos and thousands of newsarticles are published on him.

Moreover there are four other WIKI articles, on "Ravi Shankaran", "Scorpene Deal" and "Navy War Room Leak Case" as well as "Tihar Jail" that contain references to this Abhishek Verma Arms Dealer, whereas the other Abhishek Verma (archer) is referred to only once.

Abhishek Verma arms dealer has certainly more citations & newsarticles than the other ones.

This is my view on the matter of conflicting entries of two different persons with the same name on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Abhishek Verma‎ has a deletion log, which does explain (though does not justify) the above claim. The note "which was created originally by my associates in 2012 on Wikipedia" raises many questions though, like who are those associates? Do those activities comply with our policies? (sorry, no time to analyze all that now). Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Abhishek Verma Primary Article Proposed

I read your comments on my page.

Certainly a billionaire businessman who has national celebrity status in India deserves to be the PRIMARY ARTICLE on wikipedia and not the archer who is rarely ever heard about.

I propose that this topic is discussed amongst the editors of Wikipedia through your medium and goodoffices and they research the net and newspapers on the net as to who is more famous/infamous in India, and the one who should be primary, whether Abhishek Verma businessman or Abhishek Verma archer.

What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorincharge (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Gerry Bean

Hi there. Are you creating the page for the actor? If so, I'll leave the red link so that it will become a blue link. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Jozef De Vroey

Hi Bearcat. I saw that you put a catagory tag on Jozef De Vroey and, if you'd be so kind, was wondering if you'd be able to guide me as to which ones would be best and how exactly to do it as I've never done this before. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Luella Creighton

Hi, there. I'm hoping to get some more info about the removal the a link to Creighton's letter? I read the referenced WP:ELNO guidelines and don't see which point the link violates. The letter contains information about her views on poetry, the status of one of her more popular books, her son - who isn't mentioned in the article - and offers an example of her signature. In different ways any and all of this could be worked into the article, which seems to be addressed as a caveat in #19. In short, I'm not clear why you removed. Thanks! Dnllnd (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitely Not the Opera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurie Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Mau

Hi - I'm trying to understand how an edit you made to an article on Bruce Mau back on 19th February 2014 seems to have added a rather weird photo credit to the picture of this subject, which remains to this day, yet the edit differences between yours and the previous edit don't seem to show that you added the text. And neither did they.

I only stumbled on the page as I was using Lupins spellchecker and noticed a photocredit which didn't tie up with the wikimedia commons entry. Initially I suspected it was either in incorrectly uploaded image, or a prank name entered by someone. I'm probably being very naive in not understanding page history very well, but I genuinely can't see how the text 'Photo courtesy of David Gillespie' got onto infobox on that page. It appears not to have been made by the previous editor (Kevpao), nor by you, and both your edits were of just a couple of bytes. So how on earth did it get there? I'm either being incredibly dumb (quite likely), or maybe there was an intermediate edit that was completely deleted, perhaps because it was too offensive to keep in history.

I was minded to simply remove the text credit, but felt it would aid my learning curve if I tried to get to the bottom of it, and you are clearly a very experienced user who can probably set me straight. Any thoughts can offer me would be most appreciated! Parkywiki (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron B. Del Mar

My apologies, I somehow managed to remove one of your comments from the AfD. Another editor restored it. Sorry... reddogsix (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for participating

Thank you for your contributions Almost 400 new articles were created
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 (check out our next event Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)