Please post new comments at the bottom of this page, not at the top.

eggmanjames, on behalf of the Little Boy Soldiers deletion

Hi there! Just wondered what i could improve better to stop my page from being deleted, i've followed the wiki rules and spent all day fact checking it from books and reliable online sources. Thank you!


Please review citations on Springdale, Newfoundland and Labrador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMcMaster (talk)


Hey did you get my ping a few days ago? I recently got motivated to create Dennis H. Carter and got several tags put on it. I've spent over a week fixing it and kind of need objective editors to see if I've addressed all the concerns. I'd apprecate your input and if you know any editors who work in the Architecture project that would be of help too.ZarhanFastfire (talk)


Good Evening-

I am attempting to remove things that we do not wish to be public information such as officers of our company, transaction prices, etc. Also, there are grossly incorrect pieces of information about simulcasts, sister stations, etc. This page has caused me enormous issues to iron out, including vendors reaching out to me in reference to contracts as it relates to simulcasting,etc.

All of our information that we want or desire to have public is on our websites, but that has been removed. I tried one last final time tonight to rectify it.

WVWF does not simulcast with any stations.

WVWF is in Clarksville, TN

Ownership Is the Corporation.

We would like for it to be totally removed if possible.

Thank you so much for your time and assistance.

Thank you, Bryan K. Fowler President, Consolidated Media, LLC and Fowler Media Partners

About 2018 Quebec election

Hi Bearcat!

Stop putting August 29 as the date MNAs stopped being MNAs because of the 2018 Quebec election. August 29 isn't the good date under any standard. The writ of the election was dropped on August 23. Even there, it doesn't matter, as it is known convention that a dissolution of the National Assembly doesn't strip MNAs of their title. They stay on as MNA until the general election. That's why we refer to them as "sitting MNAs" during the election.

Your interpretation would be absurd, as long-standing MNAs would keep being on and off MNA since they were first elected. If you look at all other MNA pages, or federally or for other provinces, your flawed interpretation isn't used anywhere for previous elections.

David Williams III

Thank you for your assistance dealing with the party crashers.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet combinations on DEW III articles

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willywill3x and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happycats58 are probably the same sockmaster: see Commons:File:David Williams 3.jpg and of course the keeps at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Williams III compared to 2016's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Earl Williams III. (I knew I recognized that III from somewhere before.) How do we identify one as being related to the other? If you don't know, I can try pinging some of the investigation closers and see if there's a standard for that. --Closeapple (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. McCullough page deletion

Hi, I'm the author of most of the content on the J. J. McCullough page. Apologies for the difficulties this wikipage raises. This is my first time creating a biography page of anyone, let alone a live person, and it is my third wikipage in total so I am not accustomed to these Wikipedia guidelines. I have tried to add a few more third person accounts (there are a handful now), though most of the information on the Wikipage is still not based on these sources, so I while it would be regretful, I would understand if the page is to be deleted. On the side, I would like to ask, if a page is deleted, what exactly will be left of it? Will the fact that it has been deleted still be floating around somewhere in some annal? Or will this nomination and the deletion of the page be archived? Just for curiosity. In addition, the deletion project page is named : "Articles for deletion/J. J. McCullough (2nd nomination) (section)". What does "2nd nomination" mean? Anyways, thank you for the input, and I'll keep this in mind if I ever try to create another biopage of someone else. DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Bearcat, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Candy bar protest

Hi Bearcat: have you heard of the above protest? I cannot seem to find a WP article on it. Every time I add a source to it I have quite a laugh. It sounds entirely made-up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of Hill House

Thought you might be interested: Talk:The_Haunting_of_Hill_House_(TV_series)#Gutting_article_to_create_a_Season_1_article. (If the chronology and some of the posts seems a little "off", it's because some comments were under separate headings and were consolidated under this one by one editor). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juno Awards of 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

Hello! I saw that you edited a category on this Wikipedia page, thank you! Also, I'd like to point out a possible conflict of interest with one of the users voting to delete this article. This user: is voting to delete the article and he clearly has a conflict of interest as his profile states he is a member of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Jacob Alexander Figueroa is a LGBT-friendly artist for a decade plus. The Church of Latter Day Saints is known to harass LGBT groups, and supporters. Would you be willing to respond to his vote for "Delete" that he is in a direct conflict of interest? I suspected that there was racism or other bigotry at play here and I believe his profile confirms this. Thank you! WeAreAllStars (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@WeAreAllStars:, you need to chill. We have something here called assume good faith. We do not run around calling people White supremacists (as you do at the above AfD) and bigots (as you do above) without evidence. Continuing to do so without evidence will land you in a bit of trouble. If you had been around AfDs a little longer you would also know that Johnpacklambert almost always !votes delete, followed by a few neutral words. There is absolutely nothing bigoted or surprising about his !vote. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links farming, unsourced edits and uploading email screenshots

User:Elprime is using Wikipedia for creating personal attacks on Santrex, he is uploading email screenshots (File:Alexander Freeman Threatened Brian Krebs .png), google links (File:HostSailor TrendMicro.png), adding spam links and disrupting Wikipedia pages. Adding spam on pages Can you look into this? (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More of Our Stupid Noise (2nd nomination)

Mentioning this here because the nom didn't notify you. Username6892 00:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Watch your language, please! BOVINEBOY2008 01:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, and never has been, a no swearing rule on Wikipedia, so I'll use any language I damn please. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But civility is one of the five main pillars of Wikipedia! Perhaps you should review it, especially WP:ESDOS, where it says in edit summaries, "Don't be aggressive". BOVINEBOY2008 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also profanity is a sign of incivility, per WP:ICU, which could get you blocked. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Intensive Care Unit, which is a project about rescuing problematic articles? I think you missed the target there.
As for the lists themselves, as important as it is that lists be referenced under current rules, we do have a lot of old lists that were created long before that rule was imposed and thus still don't have references at all — in other words, as important as it is that lists be referenced now, comprehensively adding references to all lists is a bigger project than anybody can be reasonably expected to take on all at once, and it would create an unreasonably extreme amount of work for other editors to attempt to reconstruct dozens or hundreds of evacuated lists from scratch. So it's neither collaborative nor productive to more or less erase almost every entry in an entire list just because it doesn't already have a reference on it, thus creating an urgent content crisis that other people have to drop more important projects to fix immediately — and if a film already has an article, furthermore, then all anyone (including you) has to do is pull a reference over from the existing article to elimiate the problem. So the rule is that even if a list entry is not referenced, you are not permitted to remove it from the list if its includability in the list is properly documented in its own article.
So the only times it's ever acceptable to remove an entry from a list are if (a) the entry is both unreferenced and redlinked, or (b) you actually have a legitimate reason to dispute whether it belongs in the list at all (such as if somebody tried to add Star Wars to List of Canadian films of 2019 even though it's obviously neither a 2019 film nor a Canadian film.) If you're not restricting yourself to checking the lists for those types of issues, but just indiscriminately removing all entries that don't already have a reference provided directly in the list even if they do have properly supporting references in their own articles, then you're not being constructive or collaborative either and don't get to claim that you're the king of the high road. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 14th Jutra Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean-François Bergeron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peter Tiefenbach for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Tiefenbach 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/Peter Tiefenbach 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. Leschnei (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Surma

Hi Bearcat, this is an urgent message about the article Kinga Surma, Some user goes by the name of User:Amchow78 has put Category:People from Ottawa into the category but King Surma is not undertaking as an Ottawa politician. Kinga Surma is the MPP for the Toronto provincial riding of Etobicoke Centre. I remove the the People from Ottawa twice and User:Amchow78 has restored it twice. Now could you go to the Kinga Surma article and remove the Category:People from Ottawa category because Kinga Surma did not undertaken as an Ottawa politician, she is undertaking as a Toronto politician. Once the People from Ottawa category remove could you talk to User:Amchow78 to never put the "People from Ottawa" category Kinga Surma did not undertaken as an Ottawa politician, when Kinga Surma first elected in the Toronto riding it will kept the "Politicians from Toronto". Go talk to User:Amchow78 to never put People from Ottawa category. I will be happy with your reply. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:34D7:29ED:E4A7:A0EA (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have remove the People from category, so could you watch the Kinga Surma article if User:Amchow78 restores the People from Ottawa category remove it immediately and talk to User:Amchow78 to never restore the "People from Ottawa" category about undertaking. Thanks again. 2001:569:74D2:A800:34D7:29ED:E4A7:A0EA (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removed categories on sandbox page?

Hi! I was working on a page in my userspace and added some categories that I thought were relevant. It's just a work in progress. Just wondering why you removed them? Are they supposed to be added after the page is posted as a real Wikipedia page? Thank you!!

ORCommsGalKayla (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ORCommsGalKayla: Only pages in mainspace should have categories, not those in draft or sandboxes, otherwise these unfinished items appear in category listings. There are two ways to suppress them: put them all into a comment (I've just reverted Bearcat and then done so) or suppress each category by putting a ":" between the opening double bracket and "Category": [[:Category:Yorkshire]]. Similarly, drafts shouldn't have stub templates, as these generate categories too: again, commenting out works well. Hope that helps. PamD 20:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ORCommsGalKayla (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Live

Hi, Bearcat. Don't know how strongly you feel about this close--you know a lot more about the Rheostatics than I do. I think you had a good case for keeping this one; I'm also not sure how much experience the closer has. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Towns versus townships in Greater Sudbury

Thanks for fixing. When I was flattening this table, Excel autopopulated as "TP" for township, when I wanted "T" for town and this went unnoticed. If you find anymore errors, please advise. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

The first sentence of edit violates WP:CIVIL and is entirely unnecessary. Please remove it and apologize for your offensive personal attack. Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action

Bearcat, why did you enact full protection on a BLP you created and have been actively editing, rather than asking an uninvolved admin to do it? - CorbieVreccan 22:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are an involved editor, who was reverting other editors to your preferred version before you protected the page to prevent them from editing, I strongly suggest you undo the protection. If you still feel there is a need for a degree of page protection, you can go to WP:RPP and request that an uninvolved admin evaluate the situation. - CorbieVreccan 23:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm going to note the fact that I had to peruse your edit history to figure out what article you were talking about, since you didn't see fit to tell me.
That said, unsourced or improperly sourced BLP violations are not a simple content dispute — they unequivocally fall under straight vandalism, and thus are not subject to the same page protection rules as simple content disputes. An administrator is not barred from dropping the hammer on a vandalism incident regardless of whether they were involved in reverting the vandalism or not, and does not have to solicit another admin to come in to stop straight vandalism. This has nothing to do with "my preferred version" — I have exactly no idea what is or isn't the truth about Gwen Benaway's indigenous status, and no dog in the fight except Wikipedia's hard and inviolable rule around properly sourcing contentious or disputed content. I don't know her personally, and I don't have any vested interest in how she is or isn't presented on here — but making unsourced claims that an article subject is misrepresenting her identity is not a legitimate content dispute, it's straight vandalism, and even if an administrator has been directly involved in reverting vandalism they do not lose the right to subsequently lock down the same page if the same vandalism continues to recur. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]