User talk:Bearcat

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

Editor conflict

I have been adding more current photos I’ve taken of subjects and places in Sheboygan but User:Mrschimpf has reverted several of those edits, falsely claiming I’m some such of competitor in local media in Sheboygan which I don’t own any interests in media publishing in Sheboygan County. In one edit on Shoreline Metro, my photo of a bus in service was removed because he claimed permissions were questionable and the photo was posed. Then there is the challenge of updating the photo on Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Asher Heimermann (talk

Declined AFC submission

Hi there,

A couple of months ago you reviewed my article and declined my submission. I understood the reasons you gave as to why it didn't fit the criteria and have now made the need adjustments.

I hope the article now fits the criteria and can be approved.

Thank you, Limekiwi29

Request on 19:06:44, 12 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YaSiRu11


  • "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country [1]
  • "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" [2][3]

Asopa Films - Reinstate

Hi Bearcat,

Looking to get some pages made by Asopa Films put back up and to also save one from being deleted

Aisha and Rahul (2009) - this page has been taken down already, NON WIKI PAGE - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Aisha_and_Rahul Depth of Pyaar (2019) - this page has been taken down already, NON WIKI PAGE - https://en.everybodywiki.com/Depth_of_Pyaar Zombie Beach (2010) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Beach

Would like to discuss why these pages were taken down and how I can get them put back up and also make sure they stay up.

Regards, Winter

Wikipedia elections policy

Bearcat,

Please link me to this wikipedia elections policy in which you discussed on my talk page.

Thanks!

Merry Christmas Bearcat

Thank you!

Dear Bearcat, thank you very much for correcting the formatting and categories in some of my articles. I learned about "blockquote", which i didn't know yet. And i hope sincerely that i won't make so many mistakes in 2022 :-))) Merry Christmas! --Gyanda (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bearcat!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Categories

Hi, and thanks. I see you improving the categorization of many pages I've created. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't hate me for setting so many up imperfectly. If you have any feedback for me on how to get better at it, I'd welcome that. CT55555 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks

Hi Bearcat! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

moved articles to drafts

Hi, I see you've moved several articles that I created into drafts with the same explanation "improper move of AFC draft without reviewer approval".

Until this moment, I thought I was doing things correctly, but obviously you've been doing this a lot longer than me, so I'm of course doubting myself.

I'll start with an explanation of the chain of events, and then I hope you can comment.

1 - I used to create all articles via the AfC process. 2 - A few days ago @User:AssumeGoodWraith asked me why I was doing this and said I didn't need to use the AfC process, and I now that I'm an extended confirmed used, I could move them into main space myself. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CT55555#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Grand_Bargain_(humanitarian_reform)_has_been_accepted 3 - So I did what was suggested - i.e. for pages that in my opinion clearly are good to go, I moved them into mainspace. For ones I wasn't sure about, I left in AfC 4 - I'm no expert on process here, but it did seem clear to me that I'm entitled to make articles in main space at this point. 5 - So of course now I'm quite confused and I'm sure you'll guess disappointed to have these articles moved back. CT55555 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Louis Riel talk page

Hi Bearcat, an editor is unilaterally putting « this discussion is closed » tags on parts of the Louis Riel talk page, apparently to cut off further discussion, even though they’re not RfC sections. Is that allowed? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Cblambert

Thinking a 48hrs block for disruptive editing is due. Back to edit waring [4] their version implying it's removal is vandalism . They also closed sections again....not a big deal to me....but it was raised.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

After thought. ....you make look involved.... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cblambert reported by User:Moxy (Result: ).Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

New Category: JCPC Judges who wrote Canadian constitutional decisions?

Hi Bearcat,

I'd like guidance on a proposed new category. I'm fuzzy on the rules, and I know you know them, so I thought I'd ask you.

I would like to start a category, as a sub-cat of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council category, of judges of the JCPC who wrote decisions in Canadian constitutional law. It wouldn't be all JCPC judges who sat on appeals from Canadian courts, just the ones who gave decisions on constitutional law. The reason is that some of those judges were highly influential in the development of Canadian constitutional law (e.g. Lord Haldane, Lord Watson), and I think it would be very helpful for researchers to have a comprehensive category that identifies all of the JCPC judges that had that role.

Is this the sort of sub-cat that makes sense within the WP categorisation system? And if it is, how do I go about making it? And, if it is acceptable, do you have a suggestion for a less clunky title?

I appreciate it's the holidays, so this isn't a priority, just something that has occurred to me recently. (I'm curating the lists of JCPC Canadian appeals, tidying up formatting, etc., which is what made me think of it.)

Thanks, and if you reply here, I'll see it on my watch page; best to keep the discussion all in one spot. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Will Kidman

Notice

The article Will Kidman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. MB 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WGC Screenwriting Awards

Use the edit summary. You have a hard time with this. 2020 for example, children and preschool are separate categories.

Just follow along with how the categories are for each year. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed a valid source that I added. It was from The TV Junkies. You should restore it. Don't remove valid sources. You never give summaries are reasons for removing, changing, or adding things. It's there for a reason. Use it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. When you're editing a subsection, the subsection header is an edit summary in and of itself; there is no rule that there always have to be extra words if the things you're doing are straightforward and don't actually need explanations or clarifications. Edit summaries are encouraged, but not always mandatory; there are some contexts where they're not necessary.
  1. I am in no way failing "to follow along with what the categories are" — the fact that I copy-pasted a base template to save some time, and am making the relevant changes as I get to each year, is not a failure to do my job.

Incidentally, you need to understand that the sources for article content need to be reliable source coverage in media. I see that sometime in 2020, when the article had no sources at all, you removed a {[tl|primarysources}} tag on the grounds that "It can rely on primary sources since there are no sources to begin with...", but that's dead wrong. An article isn't allowed to rely on primary sources in lieu of media coverage, because the rule is that the sources have to be reliable source coverage in media, and an article that is relying on primary sources has to be either tagged for needing reliable sources or deleted outright as not notable at all. And even the source you added for one year overnight was the WGC's own self-published press release about itself, which still isn't an acceptable source — again, the rule is that the sources have to be media coverage, because the presence or absence of media coverage is what determines whether the award is even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all. So neither removing a primarysources tag from the article nor adding primary sources to the article are appropriate: the sources need to be independent coverage in media outlets, not the WGC's own self-published content about itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

TV Junkies is also a blog, and is not "preferred" over a real media outlet like Broadcast Dialogue, such that it should be retained rather than replaced with a stronger source. The rule is, again, not "any website at all that supports the content is always a valid source" — sources have to be real media, not the WGC's own press releases or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the source you removed. That's the point. When you look at the winners on the WGC site, you use the categories that they have for each year. Oh and yes, I moved the talk back here. Keeps it all in one spot. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There was everything wrong with the source, because TV Junkies is a blog (which is not an appropriate type of sourcing for use on Wikipedia), and a more appropriate and reliable media source was readily available to support the same content. And also, keeping all user talk threads in one place is not a rule: you're allowed to have personal preferences in that regard, but you are not allowed to go around criticizing other people or calling them negligent for not sharing your preference, because there simply is not, and never has been, any Wikipedia rule that user discussions always have to be conducted that way. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
If you look; TV, eh is also a blog. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It certainly wouldn't singlehandedly carry a topic over the notability bar all by itself if it was the only sourcing a topic had, but it isn't a blog: it's an actual, albeit small fry, trade publication. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover Biography, Categories

Katherine Hoover was an educator and musician. Were these categories duplicates? AjAirFlex (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I understand. Does this mean the entire category list needs to be deleted, until I submit it to replace current article? AjAirFlex (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I need your help

Hello Bearcat:

I'm writing to ask for your help. I have recently been expanding the article called Ramón Nomar with content and references from the corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia. In the same way I created the article called Julian Andretti in English Wikipedia: translating into English the content of the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia ... But recently, all my edits to improve Ramón Nomar's article were reversed by another user. That is why I ask, please, your help as an administrator: I would like to ask you to review my editions and assess if you can restore them ... The user who reverted my editions claimed to do that the references that I added were not reliable sources, but in actually most of the references I used were reliable sources, like this one. If you could help me, I will really appreciate it. Many thanks in advance.

Here I send you the link to the edition of the user who reverted my editions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1064876866 Tomas Fernando Camargo (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Presumed notability of members of subnational parliaments

Hi - I've noticed your contributions in a number of places regarding NPOL; given a number of comments I've seen over time regarding NPOL, I drafted the following table. If you have time, any thoughts, comments, reactions you have would be appreciated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft categories

Hi Bearcat! I noticed you take a rather strong approach to draft categories, e.g. here, removing them entirely along with stub tags etc. If there's an easy way to do it, going with {{Draft categories}} or turning the categories into links instead by adding a colon in front of them would help to preserve the content better. Hopefully the draft category thing will get a technical solution someday, where the software automatically applies {{Draft categories}} regardless of what's in the wikitext—it's rather silly that we have to handle it manually. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:katherine hoover, Thank you.

Thanks for your help. I understand now. AjAirFlex (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Review it

Hi, Bearcat Please review this article , Thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan 2409:4060:200A:F87:0:0:178F:D8A0 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Ébert

I would like to thankyou for your very well reasoned and explained nomination of Pierre Ébert. My only fear is we have way too many articles on non-notable actors and actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonny Gray Page Inconsistencies

Hi Bearcat, I noticed that on the filmography section for Jonny Gray, the film This can't be happening at Macdonald Hall is being redirect to the film series. However, closer to the top of the table is Bruno & Boots: Go Jump in the Pool and that doesn't have a redirect page. This doesn't really make sense to me because people would read Go Jump in the Pool first. I was thinking that maybe this was possibly because This can't be happening at Macdonald Hall is a more notable film? You are the more experienced editor and I am really confused so could you please clarify the explanation for this? - Bear6811 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ABearcat">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearcat&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>