Open main menu

Wikipedia β

User talk:Bearcat

CFPP AfD QuestionEdit

Not sure if you saw my question over at the CFPP AfD or not. Just wanted to give you a heads up. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:51 on February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox pagesEdit

Please excuse my ignorance. --TedColes (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the article categories. Sorry, I will keep that in mind. Malaiya (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing my userspaceEdit

I did not appreciate you editing my userspace without talking to me first. I used an existing template as a base for my template draft and forgot the categories were still there (I just went in changing names and didn't realize what I was changing was a category), but they will need to be there once the template goes live. I went back in and commented them out, which would have been a better solution for the situation. Aspening (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Walsh: Open Book, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barney's Version and Austin Clarke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nominate for DeletionEdit

Why did you nominate my page NickiHndrxx Tour for deletion? I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know how to make it better. If you Bearcat could make it better that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albany6 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Biography of Living Person Photo EditEdit

I am the Chief of Staff of Jennifer French[1] and we repeatedly keep trying to add our intellectual property (Her Profile photograph) to this profile. It is her most recent headshot used in the most recent election. What more do we need to provide to have this photograph authorized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepRhyme (talkcontribs)

Shinan GovaniEdit

Hi there, thanks for your feedback. I've added additional secondary and primary references to further establish this page. Please let me know what you think. Looking forward to your thoughts. Thank you!

Could you take a look at this?Edit

I am becoming concerned that we may be getting a pattern if semi-hagiographical articles about unelected candidates for public office. This, like the one I sent to AfD is also being promoted on the main page. I do note that she served as chair for the state Democratic Party, so that might count towards WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on Beverly Glenn-CopelandEdit

Hi Bearcat. You expressed some interest in the Beverly Glenn-Copeland article. We're having a bit of a dispute about use of a source, and I hoped you might weigh in. Would appreciate your thoughts. The dispute is discussed on the talk page.NoahB (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Siege of Coruña, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Pacheco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Superfluous reflistEdit

Why have you added a second {{reflist}} to pages that already have one? Why have you added the References section after the External links section, contrary to MOS:ORDER? For both cases, this is an example, but there are several others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not a thing I went around doing on purpose — it was an automatic "genfix" automatically applied by AWB independently of the task I had programmed for, because the pages were using non-standard formatting. If you actually look at those pages in edit mode, you'll notice that none of them actually have either "notes" or "external links" sections directly coded in the pages themselves — those sections are both transcluded by a footer template, {{#section:List of airline codes|footer}}, rather than being declared directly on the page itself.
AWB does not have the ability to recognize that a references section is being artificially created by a non-standard template, so it automatically added the reflist templates — and since AWB only shows the operator what pages look like in edit mode, and not in finished view mode, it was impossible for me to have any way of knowing that a references list was being artificially created by a non-standard template either.
So it may look stupid, but it wasn't an error on my part — the pages in question are pushing the reflist code off to a non-standard template in lieu of directly calling the reflist template themselves, so AWB applied the same automatic cleanup fixes it automatically applies to any page that has references but doesn't call reflist, and because I can only see what AWB sees (i.e. what the page looks like in edit mode, not what it looks like in view mode) I had no other way of knowing that reference lists were already being transcluded by a non-standard template either. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Does AWB not have a preview feature? I draw your attention to WP:AWBRULES no. 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have any preview feature that renders the page in standard web-view mode. What it calls "preview" still just shows the text of the page, and doesn't call templates to render a complete visualization of what the page would look like to an end user. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I've dropped a note at WT:AWB#Rule no. 1 has a loophole. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
AWB does allow for previewing (click the 'preview button'). However, this sounds like an AWB bug more than a previewing issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It would seem the correct fix here is to remove the sectioning/section transclusion from the footer template (or remove the section transclusion, at least). --Izno (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm curious as to what the reason is for the reflist to inside another template.Naraht (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a pretty easy answer, to be honest. Somewhere along the way, somebody got the notion that "boilerplate" templates were a good way to standardize formatting across groups of related articles. For example, a set of "lists of the same thing divvied up by letter" might have a standardized introduction pushed off to a template, so that each list would just call that template instead of directly containing introductory text as a way to prevent their introductions from getting edited differently from one list to another — or another very common thing is to make navbox templates artificially transclude a topic category onto the articles in lieu of each article actually having that category declaration on it. It's harmless in some instances, certainly — but it can create unintended consequences in others, such as this situation or the use of a categorizing navbox template on a userspace or draftspace page. So there may need to be clearer rules in place about when it's appropriate to push basic page formatting off to a nested template like this and when it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:TEMPLATECAT is explicit about templates adding categorization and WP:TG is explicit about article text in templates. --Izno (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

AWB helping with WP:USERNOCATEdit

I see that you are using AWB to help with user pages which have categories. Are you intentionally using the results of Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories or are you working from a different source to find them. I'd love to be able to use AWB to do what you are doing. I was doing them relatively by hand.Naraht (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Al Harlow PageEdit

Could you please explain to me why the page Al Harlow was redirected to Prism. LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

...Edit

I noticed you blocked 2603:3018:b00:a00:8889:d71a:b60e:2b36 indefinitely, but they should not be indefinitely blocked... Thanks! --24.180.87.149 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

IP block questionEdit

Hello! Just curious as to whether you meant this block to be an indef? Regardless, I just blocked the /64 for a year as they continue to edit all over the range. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and undone the individual block as I assume you didn't mean to indef and the IP is covered in the range block I made.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice for 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicidesEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Reidgreg (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making a statement. I know you were neutral but you make a good point and I feel your calm and reasonable words raise the level of the discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:LGBT directors has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:LGBT directors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. JDDJS (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stone MakersEdit

 

The article Stone Makers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable short film, does not meet WP:NF

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. BOVINEBOY2008 11:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Stone Makers for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stone Makers 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/Stone Makers 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. BOVINEBOY2008 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User page deletionEdit

Hello Bearcat,

I tracked you down using the Active users list, filtering for sysops. Could you please delete my user page?

Thank you, —Aɴᴀɴᴛᴀɢɪᴛᴀ / 07:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of CBC Music Top 20 for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CBC Music Top 20 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/CBC Music Top 20 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. Newslinger (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron HendersonEdit

Hi I wanted your advice about the comments made by User:Modernponderer (some about both of us) in the above discussion. First was the calls for trouting which is passive aggressive then he accused me of being sneaky then said it was a bad faith nomination then he accused both of us of having blatantly lied because we posted extracts of policy and guidelines, I templated him on his talk page to warn him about personal attacks without proof which he removed with as a comment "...proof was provided". So I asked him to strike his comments which he did whilst at the same time saying I had made false claims (which is the same as calling me a liar). He seems to have already been indeffed for personal attacks and be benefited from the standard offer with "Per the consensus here Mdrnpndr is unblocked with a indefinite 1RR restriction. They are also expected to uphold reasonable levels of civility". I don't think his comments are at all reasonable. From what I can see he has been blocked 8 or 9 times for edit warring and personal attacks, 3 times he was indeffed. As an admin what do you suggest should be my next course of action? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Leave me alone. I see you've already been warned about WP:HOUNDING. I struck the comments as you wanted, and am no longer participating in that discussion. Modernponderer (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
And the part about "false claims" refers to your repeated assertions that proof was not provided, when in fact evidence for the original statement was provided in the very same sentence. I cannot strike out this part as it would mean a perceived personal attack against me would be allowed to stand unchallenged. Modernponderer (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In lieu of removing the bit previously mentioned (which I cannot do), I have apologized to User:Domdeparis, and my apology extends to both of you insofar as my comments did. Modernponderer (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So if I understand rightly you are accusing me of having made a personal attack against you? If that's the case I really don't understand why you bothered apologising because it makes it sound pretty insincere as apologies go but I may be wrong. Either you stand by your accusations of lying or you say you were wrong and the apology is sincere. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
My apology is for all of my comments in the discussion that could be interpreted as personal attacks. But you stated I did not provide any proof of my assertions at all.
Nevertheless, I have added "perceived" here to make it clear that it was not necessarily an attack on your part. Modernponderer (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Apology accepted here as per dispute resolution guidelines, for me the matter is closed. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Seamus O'ReganEdit

Hi Bearcat,

You had commented on a change I had made of a photo on a page (Seamus O'Regan). I am still learning how to edit on wikipedia, but I do want to address the concerns you had about the rationale for the photo change:

A few reasons for the change: The old photo’s resolution is quite terrible. As well, his new role is about veterans, and the photo currently up there is in a different function in a previous career. As well, the old photo is nearly a decade old, and as a public figure, it makes sense to have a more recent photo. Similarly to other politicians, their photos aren't from previous careers or many years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetlamp30 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC) --Streetlamp30 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the issues with my pageEdit

Hey Bearcat,

Thank you for your comments, I have fixed the issues with my page. Could you look it over and let me know if there are any more major issues with the pape? Draft:WWPV

Thanks, Mike

@Bearcat: Wwpv the mike (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Deanne MazzochiEdit

Deanne Mazzochi was appointed to the Illinois House of Representatives on July 16, 2018. It is a de facto State Representative-elect in that they have been officially chosen by state law and will be sworn in at the first available opportunity. While I have significant issues with the draft (I think it was written by a political supporter), it meets notability. Sub national legislators are notable and (See common outcomes for general politicians). I point this out not to challenge your right to refuse drafts, but to prevent dealing with an AfD of my article.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

WWPVEdit

I fixed the Echo link but I can not find alternative links for the Burlington Press articles. I do have PDFs of them though, does that help? Also because WWPV is our brand, having the title WWPV-LP will confuse people. Could you change it back to just WWPV?
Thank you,
Mike --Mike from WWPV (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD Stev´nn Hall - thanks for categorizing and request for help to improve itEdit

Dear Bearcat, thanks for categorizing Stev´nn Hall under LGBT. I have tried to address some of the issues posed by participants in the AfD discussion, the prevailing opinion being for deletion. May I invite you to kindly visit the discussion page with a view to the possible rescue of the article? Thank you oce again. Neuralia (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankit LoveEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MB190417 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft/User no catsEdit

You shouldn't remove those categories like that. It makes them a pain to transfer to articles later. What you should do instead is at a : in the category, like this [[:Category:Foobar]]. The page then stops being categorized, and it's super easy to deal with once you're in mainspace (you just remove that :, rather than figure out which categories to add). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly your prerogative to readd the categories in a disabled form if you wish, but it's not my responsibility to preference disabling them over removing them entirely — there are a bunch of different reasons why simply disabling categories is not mandatory and removing them is not verboten.

For starters, people aren't always necessarily choosing the correct categories that the page would belong in even if it were a completed category — such pages are quite frequently filed in incorrect, duplicate or non-existent categories that a mainspace page would still have to be removed from anyway, so it's not my responsibility to leave a bad category there in disabled form. For another, people don't always put the categories at the bottom of the page to make them findable for the purposes of disabling them — sometimes they're buried in the middle of a really long page, and sometimes there are several separate clusters of category declarations in several separate places within the same page, so it's not my responsibility to preference deep-scanning the text for the word "category" over just doing the click-click-save thing in HotCat. And for another thing, in my experience editors are much more likely to remove the disabling code from a category, because they don't understand why it's there, than they are to readd categories that have been removed — so removing is often preferable, because in addition to cleaning up polluted categories we also want to try to minimize the future repollution of categories as much as possible.

At any rate, there are over 600 polluted categories in the current "mainspace categories with userspace pages in them" batch report, which each have to be checked and cleaned manually because there's no way to automate that process, and Category:AfC submissions with categories typically collects 50-100 new draftspace pages per day because new users operating in draftspace don't know the rules about categorization — and with that size of job, I can't be reasonably expected to spend two or three minutes on each page evaluating the categories for passage of problem #1, or deep-scanning the page for problem #2. If there were only a small handful miscategorized pages to deal with at any given time, then "take the extra time to disable them instead of removing them" would be a more reasonable expectation — but with hundreds upon hundreds of pages to deal with per day, that's not a reasonable burden to place on the people who get stuck cleaning up the kludge. If you prefer to disable instead of removing, that's fine — but we have no rule that disabling the categories is mandatory and removing them is forbidden. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is that you've been systematically removing those outright from user sandboxes and drafts (this one is a noob-centric). If you want to keep doing that sort of cleanup, doing a find [[Category: replace [[:Category: is better than outright removal, especially in Draft space (either manually, or with WP:AWB). This is especially important for AFC submissions, as AFC helping scripts will automatically convert [[:Category: to [[Category: when accepting articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't fail to recognize that as your point; I responded to why that "disable, don't remove" is not always a useful approach — there are a number of real reasons, including the sheer number of articles that have to be dealt with and the fact that not every category people add to a user or draft page is necessarily always a valid or accurate or even existing one, why simply disabling the category declaration, and not removing it entirely, is not always the most viable solution. And I'll add, as well, that in AWB it is impossible to evaluate whether any given category exists or not, which leaves a person in a total Catch-22 — even if you're choosing disabling over removal, bad categories that the finished article still wouldn't belong in anyway (duplicates or categories that don't even exist) should still be removed anyway, because they're just going to create even more cleanup down the road, but AWB leaves a person completely unable to tell whether any given category is a good or bad one.
Again, if you prefer to disable, you're absolutely free to do so — but no Wikipedia rule says that category declarations on user or draftspace pages are not allowed to just be removed, so somebody else choosing removal over disabling is not legitimate grounds for criticism. There are legitimate reasons why removing category declarations, rather than just disabling them, is acceptable and sometimes necessary, so criticizing other people for making a perfectly valid choice isn't really appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I can't force to you improve your edits and make them less editor-hostile. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing "editor-hostile" or "in need of improvement" about it. Is there, for instance, some part of "sometimes editors add pages to redlinked categories that don't even exist to have pages added to them in the first place" that somehow strikes you as not a problem I should be fixing in the process? I should be simply "forced" to disable a category declaration even if the category doesn't actually exist at all or the finished article would never belong in that category in the first place? Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Beatrice SarginEdit

The page now is updated with more reliable resources, can you please check again and let me know whatever it needs to be accepted Noona Noona (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Bearcat".