User talk:Bearcat/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Thank you

Hi, in your attempt to delete categories for karlyn percil you also deleted the COI disclosure, please be more mindful of edits to articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Hi, Thank you for the help and clarification. I'll add the categories back as well, since I assume this was done in error.

Thanks again for your help and any further guidance/review would be greatly appreciated -- new editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: if the article isn't "good enough" to be on wiki, is it possible that it can just be submitted for deletion if it doesn't follow the criteria? All suggested edits have been made, there are no grounds for deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Further, In the case that it is up for deletion -- it's preferred that the wiki community at large has a say as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, though I do appreciate this information, I must disagree that I cannot move it myself based on this information:

Go live now! If you are a user with 10 or more edits and registered for 4 or more days you can place your article into Wikipedia straight away. However, we still strongly recommend that you use the draft option instead. Important - Always check back in a few days. Your article will be live and it will be checked again for you by a reviewer who may leave some helpful messages for you on the article or on your talk page.

Note: I have already waited, a reviewer has already reviewed the article in question, and suggested edits have already been made. I'd propose that instead of moving it back into draftspace, an experienced reviewer, much like yourself, can provide further constructive feedback and help on the article in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Though I understand that I do have the right for another review, I don't think it warrants exercising that right for this article. If it is mandatory that all articles MUST be reviewed until APPROVAL, please point me to that information as I'm unaware of this rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments completely however, if you aren't an AFC reviewer and therefore can't provide a timely review, provide constructive feedback on the contents of the article, or show me where the rule is that says it's required for multiple reviews before going LIVE despite the aforementioned information -- I'm a bit confused as to how you autonomously to determine that it MUST sit in draftspace and put an indefinite block on the article from being moved forward? Wikipedia operates as a community project. The article in question is of someone that risks copyright infringement and with a pending IP case, a block on the movement of the page with no grounds other than it hasn't been reviewed (AGAIN) isn't appropriate. Please clarify if I'm incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat, Based on the above, I'd like to suggest that you forward the article in question to namespace with the block removed. If you can provide any policies or guidelines that can be referenced that explicitly state the mandatory nature of a continuous AFC process, then reasonably, the article can remain in draftspace. If there isn't a resolve to this issue, the next step is to request third party opinions to begin the resolution process. Respectfully, it isn't up to one person to decide what is blocked from being published on a public encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat, firstly, I'd like to say that I do appreciate your continued conversation, as It has helped with understanding your perspective. I'd say however, that it is inappropriate to assume that your interpretation of the rule is the definition of the rule.

"you are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved", not "you are now free to just move the draft into articlespace yourself anytime you want".

This "encouragement" doesn't mean that it is a mandatory rule, and you have failed to provide the rule that says it is so, unfortunately, the excuse that this is no "one-stop" for the rules isn't a good enough explanation. The simple fact that I had the ability, as a user, regardless of how long this account has been made, to initially move the article myself, regardless of if it went through 1 round or 100 rounds of feedback, means that this was in fact allowed. There isn't any button that says "bypass," simply "move."

Further, again regardless of this accounts age, I meet these requirements, which are clear and grant me permission to move the article to mainspace :

Go live now! If you are a user with 10 or more edits and registered for 4 or more days you can place your article into Wikipedia straight away. However, we still strongly recommend that you use the draft option instead. Important - Always check back in a few days. Your article will be live and it will be checked again for you by a reviewer who may leave some helpful messages for you on the article or on your talk page.

Further your questioning of whether or not the page in question meets the requirements of an autobiography is wildly inappropriate. I can confirm that this page is not an autobiography and the COI is enough for the reviewer to note, not you.

If we cannot reach a resolve, I will begin to move this article forward to be discussed as a dispute.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If I may

I read your post at another editor's talk page, regarding the way we might positively construe changes in the available biographical information for BLP cases that failed an early WP notability test. If I may, I would like to bookmark you, so that if I run into such cases, I might call on you to lend a reasonable perspective to discussions that often can be pro forma ("knee jerk") negative. If it is all right with you... Cheers, a former Prof. (editting above board but below radar) 2601:246:C700:19D:B160:B273:E4A3:8B0F (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Paragon Cause with Sune Rose Wagner

Hi there, just wantes to write about paragon cause deletion. I think this should be reconsidered. The band includes indie rock international icon Sune Rose Wagner of The Raveonettes, psyched up janis, altered carbon soundtrack, who has been covered in all major magazines including rolling stone, Billboard, etc. he even has his own wiki page as do all his other bands. I think this meets the criteria for notability and should be reinstated. Im not sure how to take the next steps, but i really think this is an error. Id recommend looking up sune rose and the raveonettes to see the importance of continuity for this musicians career.

I should also add, the bands recent album is being played and in regular rotation on many highly influencial and prominent national and international radio. CBC, KEXP, 105 The Edge in Toronto, KDHX, WPNH in Omaha, NE, KBUU [Los . Angeles, CA], KFMG [Des Moines, IA], KXRN [San Diego, CA], WVMO [greater Los Angeles, CA area] & WCSF in the greater Chicago, IL are.

Their Lies Between Us was #15 on the fmqb submodern national usa Albums Charts and was #1 album of 2019 radio for ckcu ottawa as well as numerous other top 10 radio station best of 2019.

I guess i just think there are many reasons not Jbonapar (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Hi - you were mentioned by Gleeanon409 at this FAC discussion as someone with familiarity of our conventions with assigning LGBT categories to historical figures. If you have a moment, I wonder whether you'd be willing to offer an opinion on the question of whether Margaret Macpherson Grant should have the tags? She was a 19th century heiress, who lived with a women - she gave her a ring, referred to her as 'wifie', and there were comments in the press at the time that their relationship was much like a marriage - but we don't have any sources to indicate whether there relationship was actually sexual. I am happy to follow whatever the normal practice for figures like this is. Thanks for any advice you can offer. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Question on a review

Hello, I’m new to the Wikipedia world so please excuse me if I’m making any mistake. I am waiting for a review of the new page I wrote on Tony The Insomniac Ferguson. Each day I look at it, the timeframe for review fluctuates. Some days it says it will be 4 months before anyone looks at it, and some days it will say 6 months. My question is if there is if it is possible to expedite it any way? I’m really hoping so. I truly appreciate any help or intel you can give me. Thank you. Mica Penn (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ELNO is new to me...

ELNO is new to me. Your edit summary says "WP:ELNO: book titles in an author's bibliography are permitted to offlink to Google Books only if Google Books provides a complete readable scan of the entire book, not if it just provides a directory entry."

I am happy to no longer link to google book urls, in external link sections, or elsewhere if a wikidocument says not to do so.

Is it possible you remeber a rule from some other wikidocument? I searched for "title", for "bibliography", for "google", in ELNO, and I didn't see a passage that your comment seemed to paraphrase.

Other than saying not to link to google books that lack a preview, WP:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Online books and articles seems to say the opposite of your interpretation of ELNO.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories in draft space

Hi, Per WP:DRAFTNOCAT, categories in drafts (in the draft namespace or userspace) should be commented out. I only mention this because I saw you'd removed a large amount of categories from a draft which had probably taken the author some time to assemble - and a lot of newbies wouldn't know they can get them back through the page history. --kingboyk (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know yet if it's any good or not, but I just stumbled across and installed User:DannyS712/Draft no cat which "convert[s] the categories that drafts are in to links to those categories". May be worth a try. --kingboyk (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Schweitzer

Wondering if you may have any thoughts on a recent editor who has insisted on inserting a nickname into the Doug Schweitzer article, which seems to have been coined by (and exclusively used) a single newspaper opinion columnist. To me the verbiage of the addition seemingly seems to be more appropriate for a party biography. I will not make another revert and have twice invited the editor to go to the talk page, but they have insisted on pushing it. Connormah (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#KRIT-FM

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#KRIT-FM. At issue at RfD is that there is a redirect in KRIT-FM, which redirects to a U.S. FM radio station that hasn't used the callsign, apparently, since the 1980s. It's not mentioned in the target article, so the redirect is said to cause confusion per WP:R#D2. Another editor asked about potentially disambiguating. You're the only person I thought of that may have some counsel to add to the discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 00:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Draghoula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

The wikipedia guidelines allow the usage of primary sources and in many cases are considered reliable.The article does contain reliable secondary sources from several noteworthy newspapers, and magazines for example: CBC, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, CityNews, etc. Shotgun pete (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright in that case I agree with your edit and I will look to incorporate more reliable secondary sources to the article and reduce the reliance on the primary sources. I may add that I believe it would be a mistake to blacklist the rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com website as it does contain many valuable primary sources and secondary sources from various newspapers, magazines, and other websites. I believe the solution is to reduce the usage of the website's primary sources and I will make an attempt to edit the articles that rely heavily on it. Shotgun pete (talk) 4:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

8th Canadian Screen Awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Duthie and Employable Me

Are You Gone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to No Depression

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Mennonite people

Hi, you deleted Category:LGBT Mennonite people after only two days, not the seven required by WP:CSD#C1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Will Matthews (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Will Matthews (actor) 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/Will Matthews (actor) 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. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kent Monkman

Hi Bearcat, this is an urgent message. Some user goes by the name of User:Mennowiki has triple categorize both Category:People from Winnipeg and Category:People from Manitoba with already the category titled Category:Artists from Winnipeg. and User:Mennowiki has already restored double categorization that was already in subcategories. So could check the Kent Monkman article for a possible restoring the categories People from Winnipeg and People from Manitoba and talk to User:Mennowiki never categorize the "People from Winnipeg" and "People from Manitoba" categories. I will be happy for your reply and I hope the resolution will be solved thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:418B:D137:10D2:D46A (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)