User talk:BadNewsBear

Welcome
 Hello, BadNewsBear, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

BadNewsBear, good luck, and have fun. Cotton2 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Cotton2 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian Centre for Diversity has been accepted
 Canadian Centre for Diversity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bradv 04:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nomination of Michael Bach (businessman) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Bach (businessman) 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 Articles for deletion/Michael Bach (businessman) 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 notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael Bach
Notability, for the purposes of determining whether somebody gets a standalone article about them on Wikipedia or not, is determined by whether the person is or isn't the subject of enough substantive reliable source coverage in media to get over WP:GNG, but the sources you added to support the article aren't meeting that standard. #1 (Women of Influence) just namechecks his existence; #2 is an advertorially-toned press release in the context of him being given an honour by the publisher of that release, which makes it a primary source rather than a notability-conferring source; #3 is the self-published website of an awards program. Whereas #4 and #5 are technically real media coverage, but they both contain a mere blurb's worth of information about him rather than being substantive. So exactly none of them are showing that he's notable enough for a standalone article at all. But again, for Wikipedia purposes the existence or non-existence of media coverage about him is the notability test — there's no such thing on Wikipedia as "what he does is so important that he should be exempted from having to be sourced properly".

There's also a principle on here called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: each article has to actually stand or fall on its own two feet. You can't just point to another Article B that isn't any better as proof that Article A needs to be kept — Darren Entwistle's article, as written, is very much not any sort of model for how a keepable Wikipedia article needs to be written or sourced, and the only reason it hadn't already been listed for deletion is that I didn't see it until you pointed it out (but do feel free to look at it again and see what's happened now.) If you want a model for what a good article about a person in business should look like, you need to look at articles that have actually been assessed as solid articles on our quality scales, like Lee Iacocca or Michael Novogratz or Ali Hewson.

When it comes to the conflict of interest issue, we can only judge these situations by what they look like. All contributors to Wikipedia edit under "anonymous" usernames rather than their own real names, and in fact it's very nearly impossible for us to directly determine an editor's real life identity unless they identify themselves in a Wikipedia discussion — so we can only evaluate based on things like whether a person's username implies a direct connection with the article subject, because the appearance of a conflict of interest matters just as much as the reality of one. We have an extremely large problem with people trying to misuse us as a public relations platform or an alternative to LinkedIn rather than as an encyclopedia, so our COI rules have to be strict enough to sometimes catch "false positives", because stuff will slip through the cracks if they're not. But that's precisely why I said a COI was possible rather than confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pride at Work Canada
Hello BadNewsBear,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pride at Work Canada for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicky Doll for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicky Doll, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Nicky Doll until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)