User talk:Bearcat: Difference between revisions
Arctic.gnome (talk | contribs) Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Old Conservative/colhead. (TW) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting '''[[Template talk:Canadian politics/party colours/Old Conservative/colhead|the page's talk page directly]]''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. If the page is deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these administrators]] to request that the administrator [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content|userfy]] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-t3-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting '''[[Template talk:Canadian politics/party colours/Old Conservative/colhead|the page's talk page directly]]''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. If the page is deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these administrators]] to request that the administrator [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content|userfy]] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-t3-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
==Stephen H. Wendover== |
|||
It is a formal vote now at [[Stephen H. Wendover]] so I have added you as a ''keep'' for the infobox. If I have misstated your position, please go to the talk page and remove or switch your name. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:49, 8 November 2012
Please post new comments at the bottom of this page, not at the top.
Nomination of Anthony Niedwiecki for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Niedwiecki 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/Anthony Niedwiecki 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 template from the top of the article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Abuse Report: Claude Closky & Marcel Duchamp Prize (both French and English Wiki Page -- 5 pgs total)
Dear Bearcat,
I am contacting you because you have editing the LG Williams page in the past. Thank you. Additionally, I was wondering how I can go about reporting abuse and unwiki behavior? The pages in question are:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp_Prize
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Marcel_Duchamp
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Williams
It appears that a new wiki account has been made to initiate the abuse and vandalism.
Do you have any suggestions on how I might file a report or get assistance in this matter? Thank you -- --Hellartgirl (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noah Richler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barney's Version (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Canada film list
Hi there. I see Template:Canada film list has just been created and is popping up on articles, now. I made one copyedit. You know about this stuff -- I really don't. Just flagging it here in case you have concerns/changes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bearcat, Need your advice. I created this category, but I'm not sure it's correct, see for example the cats in the article Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour. Does it seem right to you? I need a comic literature category as part of Category:Literary awards by genre and type (not to be confused with Category:Humorous literary awards, awards themselves which are humorous). Green Cardamom (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Three proposals
Hi Cat, I haven't talk to you in a very long time. Here's what I am going to ask you a favour. I have two proposals and one proposal from another user. There are two requested moves and 1 proposal at CFD. The first requested move is the article title Cowansville, Quebec is renaming to the new title called "Cowansville" at the Cowansville, Quebec's talk page. The second proposal is the existing article Mount Royal, Quebec is propose renaming to the new article called "Town of Mount Royal, Quebec" by User:Tanneryvillage. On the Mount Royal, Quebec talk page under the section requested move. I already voted "Strong oppose". And finally, Three Nova Scotia Counties, There's Annapolis, Antigonish and Colchester Counties was speedy renamed but one user oppose. I move some Nova Scotia Categories for a full CFD for three counties. User:Mayumashu did move the title to undisambiguate the comma-province name without the requested move at the talk page. If you're free from editing. Then you can participate on three proposals. First requested move is on "Cowansville, Quebec" to "Cowansville" per WP:CANSTYLE, the second requested move is "Mount Royal, Quebec" to rename "Town of Mount Royal, Quebec", both talk pages under the section "Requested move". And at the recent CFD is three Nova Scotia counties to rename without the comma-province name to match parent articles. I need your help so you can participate on three proposals to hear your comments. I will see you at both talk pages and at the CFD. Steam5 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to take a look at recent edits on this article, and my messages left at the editor's talk page. I do not wish this to develop into an edit war, but feel that the editor is acting outside of Wikipedia editing guidelines, and ignoring my advice to that effect.
Many thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to take a look at an edit war on this article. On one side we appear to have [User:Dancingqueen100] and/or [User 188.220.42.203]; with [User:Replywithyou] taking an opposite viewpoint. They all seem to be one article only editors, and I suspect it is really an on-line spat between the former owner of the label and a disgruntled observer/client. I did try to intervene myself, but it appears to be an ongoing tit for tat editing battle, that might be better viewed from an admin's viewpoint. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hotcat
Please consider using WP:HOTCAT to add categories, rather than just tagging things as uncategorised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Citation templates
You deleted index information I contributed on Citation templates for the reason: pages of this type belong in projectspace, not articlespace. I understand your reason, but I feel that whichever space, that such an index is most helpful to users, especially new or infrequent editors.
Problems with poor or mangled citations is a perennial problem on Wikipedia and anything that can be done to provide help to users to quickly find and select relevant help on how to reference and cite outside Wikipedia can only help improve the quality of referencing and citing generally.
The content I contributed allowed users to quickly identify and find the most appropriate projectspace page, from among several (some for beginners, some for more experienced users). If this does not belong in articlespace, perhaps we can cooperate on adapting the content to projectspace, rather than deleting it. Enquire (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- You need to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates to determine whether the information can reasonably be restructured, or another alternative page created, to make it easier to use. My personal interest in the matter begins and ends with the fact that your page, whether needed or not, was not in the correct namespace and could not just be moved into projectspace in its existing form as there's already a page at that same projectspace title. You'd be much better off discussing it with the people who are involved in maintaining the current citation templates page than with me.
- And just so you know, the content hasn't been lost -- it's still present in the edit history, so if you're able to get a consensus to merge your content into the existing page or to create a new one in the correct namespace, then you can simply go back into the history to retrieve it. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know I can find the content from history ... have opened talk topic, per your suggestion. Enquire (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Categorization
Hi! I'm sorry I created so much work for you by removing articles from Category:Physics. I didn't know that articles belonging only to stub categories count as uncategorized. Is there a guideline or similar resource where this is explained? My aim was to diffuse Category:Physics, and since Physics stubs is a subcategory of Physics I considered it a valid target for pages that are stubs and where other categories were not immediately obvious (partly because they are stubs). I see your point though, and will try to find proper content categories for them. — HHHIPPO 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:MMA
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. |
Romeo Antonio Categorization
Thank you for categorization: 18:22, 30 September 2012 Bearcat (talk | contribs) . . (6,849 bytes) (+298) . . (categorization/tagging using AWB) I am taking time to go over the guidelines for categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtraRed (talk • contribs)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Tinsel Korey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Tin Man, Into the West, Makah and The Guard
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
乌拉跨氪
Hello, there are several articles in Chinese (Le siècle, Corps of mines, other articles, ...) partially removed by 乌拉跨氪 (he removed the list of members, recruiting conditions, souring references... all these exist in English or French) I sent him a lot of messages, he did not take into account. I wrote to other Chinese wiki supervisors, they just redirected him the messages or did nothing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.157.164 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
wikiLove
Hello, I would like to enable wikilove on urdu wikipedia. so what should I do? I created wikilove.js but didnt enable --محمد شعیب (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Three different proposals at CFD
Hi Bearcat, I propose the different categories in three groups the categories are Regional Municipality of Durham, Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Regional Municipality of York all three different categories in groups will rename to match and follow the main article. But one user oppose renaming. So here's the catch, forget about how many ghits on Google News and Google Books and this is to rename and to follow and to match the main article. Could you talk to the user who's already oppose renaming at the CFD. When ever you're ready you will participate your discussion at the CFD. The links are located at the top. I will see you at the CFD. Steam5 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikify notice
Just to let you know that Template:Wikify has been deprecated. Please use Template:Underlinked, Template:Dead end or Template:Cleanup etc. instead. Cheers Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Heather Bright wiki
Hi,
I noticed that you keep editing Heather's page. I'm not sure what exactly you keep changing but each time you do, the text and the way the page looks changes so that its unreadable to the public (the text is going off the page and the font is different from the rest of the page so it looks weird in general). Can you pls tell me what you are trying to do so we can stop having this problem where you change something and i keep having to go back and undo your revision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacint (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Charley Beresford
Is it possible to return to the stub that had been a wiki article for several years? I realize that the recent additions may not have been up to wikipedia standards.
Mary Adelia Rosamond McLeod
Thanks so much for the recent edit. I did not add a Category to this Article. Is it important to do so?
Thanks again,
--Hedgewock (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
WRDN Listing
Hi Bearcat
I see you changed the WRDN listen to redirect to WDMO. The two stations are no longer together are are owned and operated by separated companies. Could we please have our own page as it is confusing to people thinking our two stations are somehow linked, and they no longer are. Thank you. WRDN Radio staff
Brianwrdn (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:The Rebel albums
Category:The Rebel albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Pardoned
You recently added categories to this page. After arriving there via an article inline link, expecting to read about Pardon, I looked at the page, looked up the description pages of the included images ([1], [2]) and noticed that the person who wrote the "article" had also uploaded the images with the source info: "I designed it on Photoshop and used it for my band's album cover". Then I reverted the page back to a redirect.
My first question: do you agree that reverting to a redirect and notifying the user was the correct course of action? The second question: do you feel using AWB distracted you from looking at the article and making a real editorial decision? --87.78.138.228 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I asked about AWB because I keep seeing errors of oversight from users editing with e.g. AWB and Huggle, including hasty reverts of constructive edits etc.
- In this particular case, the reason I contacted you is that I know you're skilled and trusted, so I actually took a second and third look before doing the revert. It wasn't before I noticed the "AWB" in your edit summary that I decided you had probably just not noticed the nature of this Facebook-band article. In other words: Your innocuous AWB edit, just by virtue of having been made by an editor in good standing, in a sense added legitimacy and credibility to the self-promo "article", to the point where I almost didn't revert.
- I'm not trying to start a full-on discussion about the merits and drawbacks of semi-automated editing. Just that even with those seemingly minor errors which typically happen via semi-automated interfaces, there are strings attached that need consideration, and slowing down is always an option.
- it simply isn't feasible or realistic to expect that anyone who's doing that task can always catch every issue that might arise. -- True. Is it feasible and realistic to expect from a well-established editor to recognize a little paragraph of self-promo for what it is? Like you pointed out, it cited no sources. It didn't even assert notability. The band name was linked to Facebook. Again: Is it feasible or realistic to expect that you can catch those issues which make it an at-a-glance CSD#A7? Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy or snappy, but please don't give me an excuse that includes the words "anyone", "always" or every". You messed up, plain and simple. No biggie. Next time you'll slow down and avoid a situation like this. Make a mental note, move on. --87.78.138.228 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you deleted the page defecography and left a redirect to the page defecating proctogram in 2010. I agree this was the right thing to do, however it looks like you did not transfer the content. Or I am mistaken, but the defecating proctogram page did not contain a proportion of the deleted content. Can you please do this? TY23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see what has happened. I added a little more referenced material to the page, but some of the originally deleted material is indeed poorly written and unreferenced. Agree need improvement if re-added. Final suggestion: defecating proctogram is the lesser notable synonym, (7,300 hits on google), the page that should have been kept is defecography (65,500 hits). Thank you for your attention to this matter. 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
1982
Hiya Bearcat. Not sure if you are interested, but I started writing an article on Jian Ghomeshi's new book, still basic as of yet but I compiled some sources for expansion (I may get to it tomorrow). I picked it up at the Pearson a few days ago, and finished it on my flight to Beijing, quite enjoyed it (despite what the National Post said about it being patronizing to people who remember the 80s). If you have any desire to do some content creation, feel free to work on it, I just know you are a CBC fan. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Lampman-Scott Award
Hi Bearcat - Evan Thornton here, with Arc Poetry Society. I think you are creator of above page, if I read my page history correctly. As reflected in the copy of the entry, the name of the award has been changed to the Archibald Lampman award. I don't have the skills/experience/know-how to change a title, however, and don't want to mess things up. Was wondering, would it be possible for you to edit the page title? Was thinking one way would be to strip page of all its copy/markup and past into new page, properly named, and then do a redirect from the now-empty old page to the new page, but I am sure if I knew what I was doing, a more elegant way would be apparent. Would be happy to take advice if you have time to spare to give any! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishroomscrumpy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar | |
For your timely assistance and excellent advice, from everyone at Arc Poetry! Spanishroomscrumpy (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
Indian settlements
Thanks for fixing that stuff with about "Indian Settlement." I saw right away that I'd unintentionally deleted a link, but I was in a hurry and my first try at fixing it didn't work. I was, however, not clear why it's necessary to use Canadian government terminology for communities when Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. I think it should be clear from the page that "Indian Settlement" is a government designation, not the description of a community: it looked like a Wikipedia category. Is there any way to deal with that problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.68.205 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a tricky matter, I realize, where there are valid arguments to be made on both sides. The key reason we've traditionally stuck with the terminology that the Canadian government actually uses is because it's the term that's going to be present in our sources -- for instance, if somebody wants to look at the census database to verify population and geographical statistics, they're going to have to look for "Indian settlements" and "Indian reserves" even though those aren't the most current terminologies in general, non-bureaucratic usage.
- We certainly do have the option of moving the article Indian settlement and the categories to new, more generally accepted names, but that would require a discussion to establish a consensus around what alternative name to use -- and so that we don't break the existing context links, that consensus would have to be established before we actually start changing individual articles. If you want to pursue that, the best approach would be to propose an alternative name for discussion at Talk:Indian settlement so that people can hash out a consensus one way or the other -- but until that's actually been done we do need to stick with the names that the article and category are currently located at, if for no other reason than to avoid breaking the existing links. Hope that helps a bit... Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Bearcat, and thank you for your contributions!
An article you worked on Canadian Jewish Book Awards, appears to be directly copied from http://www.kofflerarts.org/interest/Event-Detail/?RecordID=13. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Canadian Jewish Book Awards if necessary.Template:Z120 MadmanBot (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Glass (novel) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Christening and Detox
- ZAZ Tavria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Pick-up
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ambeta
There is no reason that the page of Ambeta should of been deleted, it had valid references, and was also significant in the micro national community and the world. You dont delete it you add a unreferenced tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetoprimus (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Manish Tiwari wikipedia Link
as per user talk, i have reviewed and would not be re-editing the content back. but the redirection is simply wrong Manish Tiwari != Manish Tewari. can you remove and break that redirection. the individuals can be different and it is a different name, it is like point Steve jobs link to Bill Gates. Man tiwari (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
SigmaLive
How could this article be so irrelevant to Wikipedia? There is a plethora of articles from all over the world regarding the top web portals. Der Spiegel, WSJ, BBC etc. SigmaLive has exactly the same significance for Cyprus as any other channel in a bigger country (Please view Alexa Rankings). What is the logic behind the deletion? If you have any doubts regarding my credibility then simply view my history of articles. I am only motivated by data. Its easier to delete something rather than to create or improve. talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euclidthalis (talk • contribs) 11:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bearcat thanks for all the constructive comments. Just please keep in mind that there is no other global algorithm (except Goolge's-which is not publicly available) that can estimate rankings. I should know so because I am an online marketeer by profession. Yes Alexa to most people is not relevant and can be manipulated but its the only tool we got to estimate rankings. I challenge anyone in the world to suggest Anything Better! There is not! Just keep in mind that accuracy in Alexa is relevant to position. The higher the position the hardest to manipulate. Bearcat you do sound like an objective individual but you have to understand that according to population (of a specific country) comes more (or less) editing power. The same goes with Wikipedia. I have created numerous articles around so many diverse subjects. Having negative comments about a specific article is only random and completely subjective to a few individuals. Still I strongly believe in the project! My history proves so.--Building The future through History 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Your unilateral emptying of actress categories
Hi Bearcat
On Oct 15, you redirected several categories, causing the bots to empty them without discussion. The included: Category:Lists of actresses[2] and Category:Actresses[3], and also Category:Portuguese actresses [4]. The latter was particularly reprehensible, because it was specifically created and populated by me as a test case arising from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11 -- which would have been evident to you if you had checked the backlinks ... as you should have done, to see if there was a relevant deletion discussion, which there wasn't.
Most seriously of all, you redirected Category:Kuwaiti actresses while it was still under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for discussion/Log/2012 September 19#Category:Kuwaiti_actresses. That is nothing but a sneaky effort to sabotage the consensus-forming process, and I will take that to DRV.
You have participated in enough CFDs to know that categories should not be simply emptied without discussion, and especially that that they should not be unilaterally emptied while a discussion is underway, and I can see no good faith explanation for this conduct. If you do anything like this again, I will seek to have you blocked. In the meantime, please list any other populated categories which you have redirected, so that I can restore them.
I am now restoring these most of these actress categories, except for the Kuwaiti one which I will take to DRV, on account of your sabotage. If you object to the existence of these categories, please open a CFD discussion rather than acting unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bearcat, I have examined this further, and it is worse than I thought.
- Your contribs list for October 15 shows that you made 4 edits [5],[6],[7],[8] to the Kuwaiti actresses CFD discussion between 18:44 and 18:53. Your very next edit [9] was to redirect Category:Portuguese actresses, even tho you knew that a similar category was under discussion ... and your next edits over the next few minutes were to redirect Category:Actresses[10], Category:Lists of actresses[11] and then [12] Category:Kuwaiti actresses. You then followed that up by misusing WP:AWB to manually depopulate those categories, in breach of the AWB Guide's warning "Don't do anything controversial with it".
- I will hold off taking further action until I hear your reply, but so far this looks terrible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bearact's reply below was posted on my talk. I have copied it here and replied below to keep discussion in one place per WP:MULTI.. BHG
- Each and every time an "actresses" category has ever been brought to CFD in the past, the consensus has been clearly established that the gender separation is not warranted -- which means that any such category can be redirected or deleted on sight without requiring a new discussion each and every time. The Kuwaiti category, further, was an outdated CFD discussion that was very nearly a full month overdue for closure, not an active discussion.
- As I pointed out previously, "actors" simultaneously serves as both a non-gendered term inclusive of male and female people who act and as a gendered term for the men alone, meaning that there's no possible way to structure a gendered separation without ghettoizing the women as being a subset of the men rather than the two being equal siblings of a common parent -- and thus the categories cannot be gendered without violating WP:CATGRS, because there's no way around making the female category a gender ghetto subcategory of the male one. (Unless, perhaps, you can think of some term that's synonymous with "actor" but not gender-specific, which can thus act as the common parent. But any gender categories have to be parallel siblings of a non-gendered common parent -- a female gender category cannot be a subcategory of a male gender one.)
- But at any rate, since the consensus against "actresses" categories has already been established by numerous prior AFDs, if you believe that gender separation is warranted then the onus is on you to build a new consensus favouring a gender separation, not on me to ignore the fact that the current consensus both specifically deprecates it and specifically allows for it to be immediately undone without requiring a new discussion in each and every individual case. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bearcat, I am very disappointed by your attitude, and by your attempt to conflate the substantive discussion on the merits of the categories with your own abuse of procedure. One thing at a time, please.
- Regardless of any previous CfDs, there was one open which had not been closed. You were quite entitled to ask for it to be closed, but while it was still open, there are two simple principles at play: a) it stays open until closed by an uninvolved admin; b) it is not depopulated until formally closed with an outcome that includes depopulation.
- Your explanation above runs counter to long-established CFD principles. On every category tagged for CFD it says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." As a regular CfD participant, you must have seen that text hundreds of times, and it was there at Category:Kuwaiti actresses when you went to redirect it. You must have known that this is not how things are done.
- It also quite clear that your explanation above is given in bad faith. If you had genuinely believed that no discussion was needed, and that you were entitled to merge the category on sight regardless of an open CfD discussion, then all you had to do was to post at the CFD saying "no discussion needed, cos I redirected and merged the category".
- I would have disagreed with that action, but that would have at least been open .. but you didn't do that. Instead you made a comment at CFD, editing it three times ... and then went off to empty the category without even disclosing to the discussion what you were doing. That was not just plain sneaky.
- I am happy to discuss the substantive merits of gendered categories for actors at a centralised location, so for now all I will say on that point is that your assertion that " possible way to structure a gendered separation without ghettoizing the women" is blatant nonsense. We do it for singers, so we can do it for actors, if necessary using the same terminology as used for singers: "male actors" and "female actors".
- But that substantive discussion belongs elsewhere. For now, I want to focus on the procedural point ... because unless you change your stance soon, I will take this to formal dispute resolution processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, gender segregation into "male actors" and "female actors" quite specifically goes against the core of the argument at hand, which centred specifically around the specific word "actresses". I would not in fact oppose a gender separation which used the "male" vs. "female" distinction instead of "actors" vs. "actresses", but the discussion to date has centred entirely on the specific and particular use of the word "actresses", a term which does not have a viable opposite-gender equivalent since the same term, "actors", is used both as the gender-specific term for men and the ungendered one for all people who act (which is why it's problematic for categorization purposes.) "Male actors" vs. "female actors" would be a very different debate -- I'd even support it, in fact. But it isn't the debate that was actually happening.
- And secondly, I did in fact attempt to close the CFD debate. I cannot attest to why the edit might not actually have saved, but I most certainly did make an honest attempt to close it properly. (And I didn't "vote" to keep or delete it, either -- I simply tried to explain my reasoning for making the closure decision that I did.) And again, it was a stale discussion which was approximately 3.5 weeks overdue for closure, meaning that I most certainly did not act out of process -- because even if the category had actually needed to go to discussion at all, it was a discussion that had legitimately run its proper seven-day course and did not need to remain open any further, and the whole point of my actions was that I was trying to close the debate.
- Again, the CFD consensus against "actresses" categories is already established, and thus can be enforced without having to go to CFD at all -- and in the one case where it did go to CFD, the discussion was already past its closure date. If you'd like to propose "male vs. female actors" categories instead, I'd actually be quite happy to support you in that -- but until there's actually been a new consensus established, no editor is required to seek special dispensation to simply uphold the existing one. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, save the substantive discussion for elsewhere. The procedural issue gets worse with each turn, and I want to focus on that.
- You had already participated in the CFD by posting substantive comments there... and yet you claim that you tried to close that same CFD, in clear breach of WP:INVOLVED??? So your defence to sneakily emptying the category is that you had tried and somehow failed to beach one of the basic principles of adminship.
- Bearcat, this stinks. By your own explanation, there are only two possibilities: either your most recent explanation is a deliberate lie, or you set out to breach WP:INVOLVED. Which is it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closing a discussion is not breaching WP:INVOLVED. Explaining my reasoning for making the closure decision I did, especially in a case where I have to make a judgement call rather than simply counting votes, is not breaching WP:INVOLVED. Again, note the following: I did not vote to keep or delete the category. I simply explained my reasoning for the closure decision that I was making, and then attempted to close the discussion -- if my final closure edit didn't save properly, then that's a different issue which speaks to a technical snafu rather than to any malfeasance on my part. But my actions were an attempt to close a discussion that was already well overdue for closure, well within the perfectly normal procedure for an administrator acting to close a discussion, not an attempt to breach or contravene any Wikipedia policy -- and I will not brook any further attempt to portray it any other way. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Did you even read WP:INVOLVED before replying?
- You know perfectly well that a closer's statement is made at the top, as a summary of the discussion, and not as two separate partisan posts to the body of the discussion. You also know perfectly well that two separate partisan posts in the body of a discussion are quite sufficient to qualify you as WP:INVOLVED in that discussion.
- In any case, you only mentioned this failed-edit-attempt at closure after your first (and very different) explanation failed.
- Enough of this. I expect much better conduct from an admin, and I will take this further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Er, no, "attempt-at-closure" is not a "different argument" from my initial one; it's the same explanation, merely phrased differently. And when further explanation is necessary, an editor in closing is allowed to provide clarification on specific points being made in the discussion, in addition to the closure summary at the top -- because firstly, the closure summary is supposed to be a brief summary of the closure decision (ie. "kept" or "deleted" with perhaps one or two very brief additional sentences at most), not a multi-page essay. Thus if there's a point of clarification or explanation that the closing editor needs to make in more depth than can be properly conveyed in one or two sentences, then the closing editor does have to provide said clarification as a non-voting post in the discussion before closing. It does not contravene Wikipedia policy or procedure to do so. And secondly, the only reason you can't see a closure summary at the top is precisely because the summary would have been part of the closure edit that appears not to have saved properly. If I had "voted" and then came back a week later and imposed a non-consensus closure, then that would be different -- however, as I've already explained more than once I was simply acting to close an expired discussion which I had not participated in at all while it was active, and to ensure that the rationale for my decision was as clear as possible, and my closure was entirely consistent with the existing consensus for "actresses" categories (which, again, you're free to propose a revision to if you wish, but attacking another editor for simply closing a discussion in accordance with the current consensus isn't the most useful way to go about it.)
- And incidentally, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a liar, which I consider a violation of both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bearcat, you know perfectly well that this is not how closures work. If you want to push the point, point me to the cases at CFD in the last two months where that has happened. In any case, your contributions to the CFD were not "clarification on specific points"; they were partisan comments. Take this contribution: it was not a "clarification", it was a substantive contribution to the debate. It was also a pile of nonsense, which I easily refuted when the CFD was relisted.
- I am not "insinuating" that you are a liar. I am saying straight out that either a) you have so little understanding of the CFD closure process and of WP:INVOLVED that you are unfit to take an admin role in that position; or b) you are a liar.
- I don't know which it is, but I do know that either way your continued defence of your misconduct is a disgrace. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closing a discussion is not breaching WP:INVOLVED. Explaining my reasoning for making the closure decision I did, especially in a case where I have to make a judgement call rather than simply counting votes, is not breaching WP:INVOLVED. Again, note the following: I did not vote to keep or delete the category. I simply explained my reasoning for the closure decision that I was making, and then attempted to close the discussion -- if my final closure edit didn't save properly, then that's a different issue which speaks to a technical snafu rather than to any malfeasance on my part. But my actions were an attempt to close a discussion that was already well overdue for closure, well within the perfectly normal procedure for an administrator acting to close a discussion, not an attempt to breach or contravene any Wikipedia policy -- and I will not brook any further attempt to portray it any other way. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- But at any rate, since the consensus against "actresses" categories has already been established by numerous prior AFDs, if you believe that gender separation is warranted then the onus is on you to build a new consensus favouring a gender separation, not on me to ignore the fact that the current consensus both specifically deprecates it and specifically allows for it to be immediately undone without requiring a new discussion in each and every individual case. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletions
You have repeatedly claimed above that you believed that you were entitled to speedily delete the categories concerned. For reasons I explained above, I do not find that claim plausible, but I should also have spelt out to you that WP:CSD#Criteria says "there is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed prior thereto)".
You have been an admin since your RFA in since March 2004 was confirmed here. After more than 7 years as an admin, it is implausible that you were unaware of this requirement to notify others of a speedy deletion.
The lack of any notification to anyone of what you were doing is why I described your actions as "sneaky". If you do any further speedy deletions, please ensure please ensure that you notify other editors as set out in the speedy deletion policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Gay men by nationality
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
– Fayenatic London 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Bearcat, just a note to let you know that you prodded the above article for deletion but you didn't indicate this in the edit summary.
- Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Old Conservative/colhead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Stephen H. Wendover
It is a formal vote now at Stephen H. Wendover so I have added you as a keep for the infobox. If I have misstated your position, please go to the talk page and remove or switch your name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)