User talk:Bearcat/Archive 28
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Bearcat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
LTA case
Hey, Bearcat. I noticed this comment you made on an IP user's recent edits, and I think you would be interested in this LTA case. Whoever it is will never respond so it is best to just report them to AIV whenever they pop up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Double-bassists and keyboardists Categories
I've added 20th and 21st-century Canadian double-bassists and keyboardists categories. I'm wondering if they were be better under the 20th and 21st-century Canadian bass guitarists and pianists categories. When I create those century Canadian drummer categories, we could put percussionists under it too. My thinking is we don't need every single instrument with a category under a main category. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I left the keyboardists and pianists separate. But I added synthesizers to the keyboardists categories. I have kept the bass guitarists and double-bassists separate. Still would like some input. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
RM
Any comments regarding the RM at Talk:Varanasi (Mayoral Constituency) in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agra (Mayoral Constituency).Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 10:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia Visiting Scholars and Ontario
Hi Bearcat,
In my role with Wiki Education I work on the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program. I've been talking to someone at the University of Windsor about sponsoring a Visiting Scholar and hope to get your thoughts about the subject. The basic idea of the program is that a university gives remote library access (ebooks, databases, etc.) to an experienced Wikipedian capable of using those resources to improve articles in an area of mutual interest. In other words, it's a pretty easy-going relationship intended to empower a Wikipedian in their editing while increasing the impact of a library's holdings. UWindsor would like to support someone interested to write about the history of southwestern Ontario. In my experience, it can be challenging to find the right person given a geographically limited topic scope, but I wanted to get your take. The first question would be whether this sort of program would be interesting to you personally (and if not this particular topic, if university resources would be useful to you for some other topic(s)). Second question is what your sense is of how many editors actively contribute to such articles? When I checked some article histories your name came up in a few, but I know you're active in a wide range of topics. The opportunity hasn't been formally announced yet -- I'm just doing some advance research at this point. :) Thanks for your time. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1989 Toronto International Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Comfort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Request for input
Hey there Bearcat, as a regular contributor to helping improve Canadian TV channel articles on Wikipedia, I'd like to invite you to contribute to your input into the discussion taking part on Talk:Disney_La_Chaîne#Merger_proposal, regarding the merging of Télétoon Rétro with Disney La Chaîne. Your input would be appreciated. musimax. (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that this actor was of Scottish and Greek descent, simply based on the name origin, plus I got a picture of him on internet and he looked somewhat Mediterranean. Why is it people keep deleting my information about people's ethnic background just based on his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.169.228 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey! If you're interested, I started a series of userboxes for the game NationStates. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Pickering, Ontario
I just now was browsing Special:Recentchanges and saw multiple reverts on the Pickering article. When there have been seven reverts on an article in a single hour, we're well into edit-war territory, so I gave it full protection for 24 hours. Let me assure you that I've never even seen this time-zone template; I haven't the slightest opinion on whether it should be included or not. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Notability of Mayors
In one recent AFD, you wrote, "A population test isn't really the best way to do that" (to "distinguish notable mayors from non-notable ones"). On the surface, this is plainly true, but at some level, population is a factor that should be considered. I have come to the conclusion that the Wikipedia standard is the distinction between a "low" and "high-profile" individual - that certain positions, by virtue of their position, crosses the bar to becoming a notable figure in their own right.
Now, I agree with you that the general test should be nationalization (or internationalization of coverage) for a mayor (even as we occasionally disagree on what counts). However, the test as you frequent describe it, discounts potentially voluminous coverage in regional (but local to the city coverage). Under a stringent version of your test, a mayor of Sacramento, or Atlanta, or Calgary, would require national coverage if a population threshold was completely thrown out. In my belief, winning an election of a large city flips the presumption and the argument should instead be why the subject should be afforded the larger sphere of privacy accorded to a low-profile individual. (And I recognize there are other Wikipedia issues surrounding notability, such as verifiability of facts, vandalisms, and other content-based concerns).
I don't know if volume is ever a good test for notability (v. WP:MILL), and I disagree with your assumption that all candidates receive coverage (although I agree with the larger point you frequently make). However, fundamentally your test leaves everything subjective, rather than providing clear lines of how a new editor.
(My test btw: the mayor must be directly elected by the voters in their jurisdiction, and either be the mayor of a city with the population of [somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 or greater], or received national or international coverage (which is not a reprint of a local story). --Enos733 (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
And olive branch & holiday wishes!
 |
I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.
|
Canadian demographic data
Would you have a moment to look at the edits of this editor. I'm not great at spotting vandals of Canadian demographic data but this looks weird. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Kalel2007 created as an article not a talk page
Hi, this is an urgent message. User talk:Kalel2007 was created as an article. The user talk is only for a talk page, not articles On User talk:Kalel2007, it contains categories. Could you go to the talk page titled User talk:Kalel2007 and remove some categories and a talk page. This is an urgent message. Thanks and Happy New Year. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:C01:903A:114D:47A (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_28#Peter_Hood_Ballantine_Cumming. Rusf10 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Betcha a hamburger barnstar Geoffrey Berman
From a previous discussion:
Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.
- It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is what eventually happened: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Credit_where_credit_is_due
I am waiting for that hamburger, okay? Best wishes for the new year. Rhadow (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Darren Stevens (comedian) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darren Stevens (comedian) 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/Darren Stevens (comedian) 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for film festivals
Many thanks for getting to work so promptly to implement my closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_17#Category:International_film_festivals_by_country.
I was just settling down to tag Category:International film festivals by country and its subcats for manual work when I saw the links turning red and spotted that you were already at work. And now the job is done.
Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Section 'Extreme docufition' deleted in the article Docufiction
HI Bearcat,
I have noticed you have just deleted the section ‘Extreme docufiction’ in this article. This section has been created on 24 November 2015 and was later improved in order to help understanding its contents, which are crucial to a better and updated definition of the genre. As a result, the number of watchers duplicated and tends to increase. I can’t understand why you did that and am surprised as far as you have been making corrections in the article for over one year and never questioned about the reason that now leads you to amputate the text: “this section doesn't make any sense”. Please reconsider your decision and find a reasonable solution.
My best, Tertulius (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mump and Smoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ringmaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- List of Quebec films (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Claude Fournier
- Stuart Henderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Richard Thompson
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Unclosed CfDs
Hi Bearcat
If you have little spare time, could you perhaps have a go at clearing the backlog of unclosed CfDs?
At the start of January, there was a backlog of about 200 unclosed discussions. About ten days, I started a bit of a blits on them, and the backlog in now sown to only 25 discussions, listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. However, that includes 11 from last year, which is a bit long for them to remain open.
Some of them are complex, but many of the unclosed discussions look fairly straightforward.
Anything you can do to help reduce the backlog will help keep CfD as a working discussion venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)