User talk:Bearcat/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

AFD

I see your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Tolchinsky closed as delete. I had mentioned his wife Debra Kahn Tolchinsky at the AFD and no one ever added it. She is of equivalent notability as her husband.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race

Thank you for restoring the edit here. One editor has been unilaterally deleting all contestants' civilian names for every season of this show, despite an RfC reaching consensus on only removing birth names of transgender contestants. There is an RfC closure review to clarify this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC Closure Review for RuPaul's Drag Race. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tenebrae, please do not canvass. Nihlus 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Stop with the false accusations. I commented on the talk page of one editor who had just edited one of the articles in question. Canvassing by definition requires multiple messages. Your false accusation is disruptive and in bad faith.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

They are a participant in the original RfC. Bringing it to the attention of one participant is exactly what I said it was. Nihlus 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That RfC is over. If you're suggesting I can never speak with this editor ever again about the subject, you are mistaken. And it's certainly not "canvassing".--Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nihlus, you're also missing the context of what I actually did. A different user made a shitpost edit to a different part of the article, but while I was in the process of reverting that, Tenebrae made their edit in the interim — so since I accidentally reverted their edit in the process, I restored it in good faith since it had nothing to do with what I was actually trying to revert, and all Tenebrae did here was thank me for that afterward. Don't even try to drag me into a "canvassing" argument here — it has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened, and I will not stand for having my good name tarred and feathered by it. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What? I didn't even say you did anything wrong. I didn't even comment on anything you did. Nihlus 21:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11)

The seven-week long full protection on RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11) seems rather excessive. Please reduce it to something much shorter or replace it with pending changes protection. Thanks. Nihlus 20:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

All I did was leave the protection at the same length of time that was already applicable to the semi that was already in place, because the shitpost changes to the weekly placements table weren't actually getting controlled by the semi at all. If and when there's a consensus that the problem has been resolved, then of course the protection level can be dropped back down, but I am not altering the timeframe that was already on the existing protection in the meantime, because that also expires the semi at the same time. We can bounce the level of protection up and down as needed, obviously — but we cannot let all protection on the page expire completely until we're absolutely sure that the problem is actually resolved. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You are also preventing anyone from adding anything to the article by fully protecting it. Protecting it for seven weeks goes against WP:PROTECT, which is why I am still asking that the full protection be reduced to something like 24 hours or the protection be reduced to pending changes or back to semi. Nihlus 21:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Placing full protection overtop of existing semi doesn't work that way. Putting a 24-hour time limit on full-protection does not make the article drop back to the prior sprot after 24 hours — it completely overrides the sprot, and makes the article drop back to fully unprotected after 24 hours. Also, the editors who are actually making the shitpost changes to the challenge placements table are already-autoconfirmed users who can edit through the sprot — which means sprot is not working to control the problem at all. So, again, we can bounce the level of protection up and down as needed — but if I change the pre-existing time frame on the pre-existing protection so that the full protection automatically expires itself, that does not mean that after 24 hours the page drops back to its prior state of semi-protection — it means that after 24 hours the page drops back down to zero protection, and we can't let that happen. Close editor oversight and direct editor management is required in this situation, not automatic expiry times that let the system act independently of direct editor intervention. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of how the protection works, but you haven't said that you plan on dropping the protection after a certain amount of time. As long as you intend to drop the protection down by Thursday I really don't have an issue with it. I would prefer 24 hours, though. Nihlus 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I used the word "temporarily" in my edit summary, and I said several times in this very discussion that "we can bounce the level of protection up and down as needed", and I started an SPI on a couple the shitposters. What part of any of that implies that I somehow haven't said that I plan on dropping it after a certain amount of time? Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then: do you plan on dropping the protection in 24 hours? I need to know if and/or when I need to go to WP:RFPP to request a reduction in protection. Nihlus 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already requested some input on the article's talk page into what the best way forward is — but since semi hasn't been controlling the problem at all, just dropping it back down to semi right now, without finding some new solution somewhere between semi and full, isn't it. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis Article Creation

Hi, can you create an article for actor Caillou Pettis? He is in Shazam! (2019), Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019), Let Him Go (2020) and more. For more information, you can find a lot on Google.

IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6569371/ Sources: https://www.airdriecityview.com/article/airdrie-filmmakers-debut-feature-shooting-this-month-20180823 https://www.pophorror.com/filmmaker-caillou-pettis-announces-cast-crew-additions-for-omnicron-2019/ https://www.pophorror.com/caillou-pettis-takes-over-omnicron-2019-screenwriting-duties/ https://guacamoley.com/the-scoop/2019/01/23/toni-collette-oscar-snub-hereditary/ http://www.mtv.com/news/2060962/taylor-swift-bullied-fan-tumblr/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6451041/taylor-swift-sweet-message-bullied-fan-tumblr https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/caillou-pettis/movies https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/caillou-pettis-34420.php https://www.flickeringmyth.com/author/caillou-pettis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.216.163 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I can't and I won't. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles — the notability test for an actor is the degree to which reliable sources have or have not done journalism that is about him and his performances in those roles, not just the ability to technically verify that he's been in stuff. Most of what you've listed above is not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all — for example, blogs are not permissible as sourcing for Wikipedia articles, so things like Guacamoley and PopHorror and FlickeringMyth don't count for anything, and people don't automatically get into Wikipedia just because they have profiles on IMDb or Rotten tomatoes either — and the few that are actually reliable sources are not covering him in a noteworthy context. So exactly zero of these links count as substantive support for his notability as an actor at all. And specifically because you've been so persistent about trying to get yourself into Wikipedia for publicity purposes in the past, you are really going to have to make a very solid case for notability, based on much better sources than you've ever shown before, to actually get back in the door. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis

At least he tried. Definitely one of my least favorite serial vanity spammers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Rowers from (insert Canadian city)

Hi Bearcat, this is an urgent message about categories names Rowers from Canadian cities. Some user from New Zealand goes by the name of User:Grutness have created the categories about Rowers from a specific Canadian city. There is no guideline on a creating a categories on a specific sport. The following categories have affected from the Sportspeople from Canadian cities: Category:Rowers from Hamilton, Ontario, Category:Rowers from St. Catharines, Category:Rowers from Toronto, Category:Rowers from Vancouver and Category:Rowers from Victoria, British Columbia. For my request could you rower categories and put them for CFD and separate the categories. The three Ontario cities are going to be separate to Category:Rowers from Ontario and Category:Sportspeople from (Ontario city name). And the two British Columbia cities are going to be separate to Category:Rowers from British Columbia and Category:Sportspeople from (British Columbia city name). Could you talk to User:Grutness on never create a category on a specific name of sport and the five rowing categories will be on CFD. I will be happy to help you on the rower categories. Don't forget put the five rowing categories to the CFD and if they don't allow rower categories for it's consensus. Thank you and have a great day. 70.68.71.165 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh I almost forgot Bearcat, I know you are very busy on a lot of edits. Could you please review User:Grutness's contributions I think User:User:Grutness has created a lot rower specific categories that should go a lot of rower categories to the CFD as well. And tell User:Grutness to never create a category on a sportsperson on a specific sport category. I am just reminding you. Okay? Thanks. 70.68.71.165 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I really have no interest in intervening in this at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please restore the Rein Maychaelson page

Dear Bearcat, the page Rein Maychaelson that has been deleted because of a page still in draft, are both written by me. The second page that was deleted was made because I thought It could be processed faster. Is it possible to restore that page?

If not, could you let me know what I can do? Because I think i already deleted the first original page.

Also, to let you know, just in case too, I have emailed Wikimedia regarding permission usage of the images in the Rein Maychaelson page.

I have permission to use, and distribute those images as I am the co-producer and distributor working together with Rein Maychaelson, the owner of said images. The email I sent has a signed letter attached from Maychaelson giving me permission to use those images.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenev101 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Sorry, I'm still learning on Wikipedia. Because I made a second page, Udin Telekomsel, and it was immediately published, so I was confused if my first article was made correctly or not. So do i just need to wait for my draft to be reviewed? The draft wasn't disregarded for review?Jenev101 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, Bearcat. You have new messages at WP:COIN.
Message added 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you are providing links to external sites as any form of evidence over a SPI/COIN case, please archive the page over Wayback (or Archive.is). It frequently happens that the suspect comes across the laid out evidence and realizing his crude ways, pulls the stuff down. Have done that for you. Best, ∯WBG^converse 15:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

Just wanted to say thanks for all your edits. You are absolutely relentless and it makes Wikipedia a better place. Thoughts on who will win s11? (FYI: BLH is coming to TO for Pride: [1]Exilewhat (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the tea, even half-steeped. Very curious to know how it'll all work out. You may have stochastically spoiled the top 4 - but this is the internet, so who knows I feel like half the fun of predicting the week-on-week these days is anticipating the reality show 'formula' to the race. Will have to get tickets for that Woody's event - thanks for the heads up. We've had a lot of DR queens visit Canada but this is a unique season for someone who was born here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exilewhat (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi, I noticed you're active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and was wondering if you had any advice on how I might start helping on this side of the project. Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you

Dear Bearcat, thank-you for taking the time to explain to me the mistake I made. I was unaware of the protocol breach I was making in moving the article. It will not happen again. Regards, Annie.--Annie Barrington (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)