User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Daniel Pelka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterboard (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) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Lower class" disambiguation

Hello, Jim Michael. There are currently a large number of pages (more than 50) pointing to Lower class, which you recently turned into a disambiguation page. Any help you would provide fixing those incoming links and making sure they point to the right place will be appreciated. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joe Wilkinson

The article Joe Wilkinson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I simply do not believe that the a single-line stub about a retired footballer is anywhere near as commonly viewed as the comedian. A sort of G6, but is controversial maintenance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Launchballer 01:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

As an 89-year-old, I’ve been revising the Old age article and am just beginning work on “life expectancy.” Thanks for catching errors I would have missed. I’d appreciate your checking all my edits and, if you’re interested in old age, offering suggestions. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The variations between life expectancy should be expanded on, both in regard to the present situation and how this has changed over time. Most parts of the world have seen massive increases in life expectancy, but some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, eg. Zimbabwe have seen falls in their life expectancies, due to the AIDS epidemic. Russia and Eastern Europe have the largest differences between male and female life expectancies, partly due to the high male suicide rates there.

Another improvement to the article could include how the elders are the leaders of their communities in some rural parts of the developing and underdeveloped world.

It's difficult to decide which information should be added to the old age article, what should be on the life expectancy article etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brendan Sheerin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flixton (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) 09:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems on the Death of Mark Duggan page

Jim, in this edit you call the subject of the article an "irresponsible, overbreeding, gun-toting, convicted criminal" and ignore the talk page provided for discussion of the issue. If this is the kind of language you choose to express yourself it will oviously be difficult to edit with neutrality. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The section on the talk page so far supports not having the 'unarmed' category, my removal was supporting the consensus on the talk page, not going against it. I've not ignored anything - I have joined discussions on the talk page, including the one concerning the cat in question. The cat was removed previously by someone else. If he truly were unarmed, then armed police would not have been following him. Duggan was shot because he was armed, so it is ridiculous to claim that he was unarmed. There are many people trying to paint Duggan as an innocent family man who was killed by the police for no real reason, whereas the truth of the matter is that he made a completely free choice to collect a gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster minutes before Duggan was shot. That Duggan threw the gun seconds before he was shot did not make him unarmed. He also made a free choice to routinely associate with known gang members, something which innocent people tend not to do. Duggan collecting a gun from drug dealer KHF minutes before his death totally discredits the case of his family and supporters that he was only a minor offender or that he had turned his back on crime. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries like that do not help. Please refrain. Widefox; talk 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of ABH

Category:People convicted of ABH, 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. Mattinbgn (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of rape

Category:People convicted of rape, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Keith Blakelock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland (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) 08:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bogotá

(→‎Climate: Bogotá doesn't have winter)... Is this city in some mythical land where there are only three seasons? What do they call the period from 21 December to 20 March? Can you find me a location without a summer, I would so love to move there. (note: I did not revert or anything, just found the rationale amusing)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're using the astronomical description of summer, which is not relevant when describing climate. It is four degrees latitude away from the equator; it doesn't have a cold/cool season, it is warm year-round - look at the climate chart, the average temperature of each month is virtually the same. I don't know why you think that everywhere in the world has four climactic seasons. Some parts of the world have two seasons, wet and dry - an example of this is Jakarta. Some parts of the world have no seasons - for example Singapore, which is hot and wet every month. Most of Antarctica and most of Greenland are covered with ice continously - hence they don't have summer, they have a cold season and an extremely cold season. I don't know why you'd want to move to somewhere that is continously frozen! Jim Michael (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Rubin Carter have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why you have wrongly templated me. I have been a regular good contributor for years, editing most days. Defamation and libel can only be committed against living people; Carter is dead. BLP and its subsections, such as BLPCRIME only apply to living people. Carter's violent criminality is undisputed; the only dispute is whether or not he committed a triple murder. As I said in my edit summary, he was a serious convicted criminal from age 11 until he died, and would still have been even if he had never been accused of the triple murder. I have never said that he was a murderer. As he has unquashed convictions and he was a public figure for decades, I would not have violated BLPCRIME even if he had not died. Jim Michael (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It still applies. See WP:BDP for proof of this. At least a minimum of 6 months. Tutelary (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peaches Geldof, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gravesend (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) 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canberra. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A warning from the only person opposing me, the only person in an edit war with me, is inappropriate. You're reverting my factual improvements. I'll reply on Talk:Canberra. See Koeppen climate classification for how to describe climates. Moscow and Calgary have continental climates; Canberra does not. Twice today you've falsely stated that it is my opinion that Canberra has an oceanic climate (not continental), when it is fact. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jim Michael. You have new messages at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.
Message added 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

331dot (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Dixie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visa. 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) 09:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Disappearance of Alice Gross

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Disappearance of Alice Gross requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dmol (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly states this event's notability. It is a highly publicised disappearance which is the Metropolitan Police's biggest investigation since 7/7. Jim Michael (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Alice Gross for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Alice Gross 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/Disappearance of Alice Gross 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. Dmol (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Katy Perry. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never vandalised and none of my edits 'appear to be vandalism'. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete speedy tag

Hi, I suggest you to don't delete speedy tag, as you did on Stand Up to Cancer UK. You are not administrator to do so; if you keep doing this, you might get blocked for disruptive edition. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That is vandalism, and look that it's not the first time you do it. I will refer you to an admin to examine your case. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 01:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The speedy tag was placed there wrongly; it is not eligible for speedy deletion. It is not vandalism to remove it; it is only the creator who may not remove it. Removing the notice is not an 'admin-only privilege'. If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD. Jim Michael (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 24 Hours in Police Custody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspirator. 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) 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona#Climate

Your new changes are controversial. According to Wikipedia:CYCLE: first discussion and consensus, later changes. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about correcting 'warm' to hot in regard to Barcelona's climate. The Barcelona article only mentions one type of climate classification, Koeppen, which states it clearly has a hot-summer Mediterranean climate, not warm-summer. Saying that another classification system doesn't consider it to have hot summers, without mentioning that system or providing a reference in the article, is bizarre. If you want to challenge Vladimir Koeppen's classification of Barcelona's climate, you'll need a reliable source for that. You're the only person challenging my correction; the burden of proof is on you. Jim Michael (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you wrong. Your new changes are controversial:

• Köppen Climate Classification is not the only
• "The Barcelona article only mentions one type of climate classification, Koeppen" - because rest there is in separate article: Climate of Barcelona. If the doubt, we remove Koeppen from main article about city, because for detailed climate data is place here: Climate of Barcelona.
• Barcelona has only two months with warm or at most very warm (but not hot) temperatures: July and August (27.5 and 28.0*C (official data). Rest of months are not very warm and at all hot.
• term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)" does not mean that city has whole hot summer. This is only term, Köppen use this to division of Mediterranean climate into two parts. "Hot-summer" is type of Mediterranean climate according to Köppen Climate Classification and does not mean that any city generally has hot summers. "Hot-summer" is type of Mediterranean climate and is not synonymous of "Hot-summer" city. You mislead two different concepts.

Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to remove climate info from Barcelona. An article on the climate does not mean that the main article should not include a summary. Barcelona's summers are hot, not warm. Four months are hot (not warm): June, July, August and September. May and October are warm. Warm summers are what London (Cfb), Vancouver (Csb), Paris (Cfb), Amsterdam (Cfb) etc. have. Your claim that a location being classified as having a hot-summer Mediterranean climate does not mean it has hot summers is ludicrous. That's like saying that just because a location is classified as having a polar climate, it doesn't mean it's cold, or that a location having a desert climate doesn't mean it's dry! Jim Michael (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• "It would be ridiculous to remove climate info from Barcelona. An article on the climate does not mean that the main article should not include a summary" - no, remove information by Koppen is as the most reasonable. Koppen is only one of few climate classifications. There is no need to favor only one, not to mention the POV.
• "Barcelona's summers are hot, not warm. Warm summers are what London (Cfb), Vancouver (Csb), Paris (Cfb), Amsterdam (Cfb) etc (.......)" - this is ludicrous. Hot summers are what Nicosia, Kuwait City, Marrakesh etc, with temperatures of 37*C or more, for example Las Vegas (40*C). Temperatures of 27-28*C (in two warmest months of summer in Barcelona) are hot? the more stupid things I have not heard. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 17:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What I've said is how experts such as Wladimir Koeppen classified climate. Your claim that hot starts at 37C is not shared by any climatologists; I don't know why you think that. The Trewartha climate classification categorises Barcelona's climate as Csak. A 22C 24 hour average in the hottest month is the threshold for hot in Koeppen, and 23C 24 hour average is the threshold for Trewartha. Jim Michael (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again: Koeppen divided Mediterranean climate into two groups, "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)" is one of two groups. Just enough. Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" does not mean hot summer generally in city. This is only hot summer version of Mediterranean climate, not hot summer version of all climate types (including tropical, desert, equatorial climate etc).

And again: Köppen Climate Classification is not the only

Where I wrote "hot starts at 37C"? It was just an example to show the gap between Barcelona and hot summers in other cities. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Mediterranean climate is split into three subtypes in Koeppen, separated by whether the summer is hot, warm or cool (Csa, Csb and Csc). Csa is the hot-summer version of the Mediterranean climate, that means it's the subtype of the Mediterranean climate which has hot summers. You wrote that hot summers are what Nicosia, Kuwait City, Marrakesh etc, with temperatures of 37*C or more ...... . They do all have hot summers, but none of them have a Mediterranean climate, because they are all too dry to be classified that way. They all have significantly hotter summers than Barcelona, but that doesn't mean that Barcelona's summers aren't hot. Koeppen and Trewartha both classify Barcelona as having hot summers (Csa and Csak respectively). You haven't suggested any climate classification system which doesn't regard Barcelona's summers as hot. Moscow's winters are much colder than Warsaw's, but we don't say that Warsaw's winters aren't cold or that winters have to be as cold as Moscow's to be classed as cold. Barcelona and Nicosia both have hot summers; Warsaw and Moscow both have cold winters. Jim Michael (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Csc?????
• it does not matter how many subgroups, cs-"a" to "z" or only cs-a, cs-b; to this topic it does not matter.
• You wrote "Nicosia, Kuwait City, Marrakesh etc, with temperatures of 37*C or more ...... . They do all have hot summers, but none of them have a Mediterranean climate" - according to map of Koeppen, Nicosia (and whole Cyprus) lies within Mediterranean zone, so.
• You wrote "They all have hotter summers than Barcelona, but that doesn't mean that Barcelona's summers aren't hot" - it works both ways, they all (Paris, Warsaw etc) have significantly cooler summers than Barcelona, but that doesn't mean that Barcelona's summers are hot.
• You wrote "Moscow's winters are much colder than Warsaw's, but we don't say that Warsaw's winters aren't cold or that winters have to be as cold as Moscow's to be classed as cold" - it works both ways. Paris's winters are much colder than Barcelona and both have warm summers; Paris and Barcelona both have mild winters.
• Your thinking is illogical, "warm summer", "hot summer" (as a description, not to be confused with term by Koeppen's Mediterranean climates) - this is general concepts, independent of types of climate (temperate, subtropical, tropical or other). If in June there is 25*C, June is warm - independent of types of climate, no matter whether it's temperate climate or tropical climate or invented names created for Koeppen climate classification. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 16:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Most important for dessert: term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)" is invented names created for Koeppen climate classification. Nothing more. Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" does not mean that city has whole hot summers. For example Barcelona, only July and August meets the requirements of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" by Koeppen (Daily mean °C is 24-25*C) but rest months - not. July and August are hot only for Koeppen climate classification, for rest climate classifications - not. June or September in Barcelona are warm, not hot for all climate classifications (also for Koeppen climate classification) - (Daily mean °C is 22*C). Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)" by Koeppen climate classification there is no law to mean that whole summer is hot because it is a clean lie. Also Koeppen climate classification nowhere says that Barcelona or other have hot summers. Nowhere. Koeppen climate classification only qualified these areas for term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)". Nothing more. If "X climate classification" divide global climate into two groups, for example: "climate of warm summer" and "climate of cold summer" and Mediterranean basin get into the group of "climate of warm summer", does not automatically mean that Nicosia in Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea) have warm summers. This is the only qualification for a particular group, nothing more. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a Csc classification in Koeppen, although it exists only in very small areas at very high altitude. It is a cool-summer Mediterranean climate and is far less common than Csa and Csb.

The Koeppen world map's scale is not detailed enough to see all the boundaries between climates. Nicosia has a hot semi-arid climate. It's rainfall is too low for it to be classified as having a Mediterranean climate.

You said that Paris and Barcelona both have warm summers and mild winters. However, Barcelona has hot summers and mild winters; Paris has warm summers and cool winters. They're very different types of climate (Csa and Cfb). The main reason that Spain is a very popular holiday destination for people from the UK, Germany, Netherlands etc is its climate. The only parts of Spain that don't have hot summers are the north coast and the high ground. Warsaw and Moscow have the same type of climate (warm summers, cold winters; humid continental; Dfb, yet the winters are significantly colder in Moscow which is why I used it as an example).

This discussion should be on Talk:Barcelona, but I don't know how to move text from one talk page to another. If you can do that, someone else is likely to join the discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Csc existed or not, it does not have any meaning here

"Nicosia has a hot semi-arid climate. It's rainfall is too low for it to be classified as having a Mediterranean climate" - really? Maybe for you. Los Angeles also have a Mediterranean climate, with the same rainfall.

and again: summer in Barcelona does not takes two months, even if Barcelona has a hot July and August (repeat: if), rest months are not hot. So, you can not write that summer is hot. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I only mentioned Csc because you said that the Mediterranean climate is split into only Csa and Csb.

Nicosia is definitely BSh, certainly not Csa. Los Angeles is not a good comparison as it has slightly higher rainfall than Nicosia and is at the junction of different climate classifications, including Csa and Csb, as explained at Los Angeles#Climate. It's not 'for me' - it's what Wladimir Koeppen declared.

In Koeppen and Trewartha, climates are classified by their hottest month, coldest month and precipitation. They don't require being hot, cold etc throughout a season. Some Mediterranean climate locations have only have one really dry month Rome for example, yet they're still classified as having dry summers. Jim Michael (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicosia (342 mm) has the same rainfall than Los Angeles (379 mm - Csa / 325 mm - Csb). Koeppen no shows Nicosia as BSh, but as Csa so, your "Nicosia is definitely BSh" is OR. I and you know, maps by Koeppen are not accurate, so this source should be treated with reserve. There are even discussions on the reliability of this source.

"Koeppen and Trewartha, climates are classified by their hottest month, coldest month and precipitation" - yes, but as you wrote "are classified". If city is classified to "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" (Csa) does not mean whole hot summer in city. Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" (Csa) refers only to the hottest month!, not whole summer. This is the crux of the matter. Thank you for the conversation. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles' rainfall and temperature vary a great deal depending on area of the city. Parts of it have significantly higher rainfall than you state.

The Europe Koeppen map puts Nicosia into BSh; it's coloured orange on the Koppen Europe map. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Los Angeles' rainfall and temperature vary a great deal depending on area of the city" - rainfall not. The downtown of L.A. has 379 mm rainfall - according to Koeppen this is Mediterranean climate, coast part of L.A. has 325 mm rainfall - according to Koeppen this is Mediterranean climate. Furthermore, it does not matter for this case. Nicosia was only example. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What is it? For most people hot summer is >30°C and mild summer is ~20°C. For you 20°C is warm summer? For you 27°C is hot summer? Apparently you are different than other peoples. Also according to Koeppen/Trewartha climate classification 10 to 17.9 °C (50.0 to 64.2 °F) is "l — mild", downtown of San Francisco in the warmest month have 20.1°C/12.8°C - average daily 16.4°C, so - mild, not warm. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nicosia is reliably referenced as BSh as well as showing as that on the Europe Koeppen map. If you can find a reliable source which backs your claim that it has a Mediterranean climate, then do so.
• LA's rainfall and temperature vary so much that it is split between different climate classifications. Look at Los Angeles#Climate and you'll see that there are very different statistics for different parts of the city. That's why figures from different areas are shown. Istanbul is another example of this - a large city at the confluence of different climate classifications, and also has data from different areas in its climate section.
• SF's climate is well within Csb, which is warm-summer Mediterranean. That's what I corrected; its Koeppen classification. There is no such Koeppen classification as 'mild-summer Mediterranean'.
• In Koeppen, summer is classified as hot if the hottest month is at least 22C for its 24h average; for Trewartha it is 23C. Your claims as to what most people consider hot, warm, mild etc. are a combination of guesswork and limited, original research. They are also irrelevant. We classify by what experts such as Wladimir Koeppen declare, not by what most people think is the case. A high proportion of people think that Sydney is the capital of Australia. Do you think that we shouldn't provide the correct information that the Canberra is the capital? Millions of people think that Seattle is America's wettest city; however, the whole of the Eastern Seaboard has higher rainfall. I've heard dozens of people claim/complain that Seattle has extremely high rainfall, yet I've never heard anyone describe New York City as rainy. The truth is that NYC receives a third more precipitation than Seattle. Do you think we should conceal that because it goes against what most people think is the case? This is an encylopedia; it's for reliably sourced, relevant facts, not to confirm what most people think regardless of the truth. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that L.A. has microclimates, I use the zones separately (downtown, coast). Nicosia (supposedly Bsh) have the same rainfall (342 mm) than Los Angeles. The downtown of L.A. has 379 mm rainfall - according to Koeppen this is Mediterranean climate, coast part of L.A. has 325 mm rainfall - according to Koeppen this is Mediterranean climate. So, Koeppen drank at work? Also, you wrote "SF's climate is well within Csb, which is warm-summer Mediterranean" but does not meet the requirements, according to Koeppen/Trewartha climate classification 10 to 17.9 °C (50.0 to 64.2 °F) is "l — mild", downtown of San Francisco in the warmest month have 20.1°C/12.8°C - average daily 16.4°C, so - mild, not warm. Thus, despite the mild climate, Koeppen moved on own map San Francisco to warm climate. Reliable? Mockery. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're confusing two separate climate classifications, Koeppen and Trewartha.
• Wladimir Koeppen hasn't been discredited. He's one of the most respected in his field and his climate classification is widely used around the world. You disagreeing with him doesn't mean that you should remove information sourced to him from Wikipedia articles.
• SF easily is well within Csb in Koeppen, which is what I stated in its article. There's no such classification in Koppen as 'mild-summer Mediterranean'. There is only hot-summer Med (Csa, for example Rome); warm-summer Med (Csb, for example SF) and cool-summer Med (Csc, for example Balmaceda, Chile).
• Nicosia is BSh, not supposedly. Perhaps other things, such as % humidity, average yearly temperature and proximity to the coast need to be taken into account. LA is on the coast; Nicosia isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Trewartha classification is only a modified version of Koeppen classification, this is not completely new classification.
• "Wladimir Koeppen hasn't been discredited. He's one of the most respected in his field and his climate classification is widely used around the world" - this is your own opinion.
• "You disagreeing with him doesn't mean that you should remove information sourced to him from Wikipedia articles" - I'm not going to remove whatever
• "SF easily is well within Csb in Koeppen" - nonsense. I proved that it is not. Numbers do not lie. Sorry.
• "There's no such classification in Koppen as 'mild-summer Mediterranean" - yes, and here is the problem. According to temperatures and rain, must be about 4 varieties of Mediterranean climate, including "mild-summer Mediterranean" (San Francisco), "very warm-summer Mediterranean" (Barcelona), "very hot -summer Mediterranean" etc. Koeppen pushed the cities into two categories though do not meet its own requirements. A perfect example is San Francisco, according to climate classification 10 to 17.9 °C (50.0 to 64.2 °F) is "l — mild", downtown of San Francisco in the warmest month have average daily 16.4°C, so - mild, not warm but Koeppen push San Francisco to "warm-summer Mediterranean". This is just one example. Koeppen all cities within mild zone of Mediterranean put to "warm-summer Mediterranean" and all cities within very warm zone and very hot zone of Mediterranean put to "hot-summer Mediterranean" because in Koeppen classification there are only two varietes of Mediterranean. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 17:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Koeppen is the most commonly used and well-known climate classification proves that his work hasn't been discredited. You didn't prove that SF isn't Csb. Its statistics show that it is. It is not arid or semi-arid. Its 24h average has all months above 0C and below 22C and at least four months above 10C. Its driest summer month has less than a third of the precipitation of the wettest month. Those are the requirements for Csb, which it easily meets. If you think it isn't Csb in Koeppen, what are you claiming it is? You may think that there should be four types of Med climate, but under Koeppen there are three (Csa, Csb and Csc); Barcelona is Csa, SF is Csb, Balmaceda is Csc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the discussion strays from the topic. Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" "(Csa)" is invented name created for Koeppen climate classification. Nothing more. Term of "hot-summer Mediterranean climate" does not mean that city has whole hot summers. Koeppen climate classification show Barcelona on map within own "hot-summer Mediterranean climate", based on their own work and principles (temperature of warmest month). Koeppen do not write that whole summer in Barcelona is hot, this source for this type of sentences does not meet any requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. If "X climate classification" divide global climate into two groups, for example: "climate of warm summer" and "climate of cold summer" and Mediterranean basin get into the group of "climate of warm summer", does not automatically mean that hot-summer Nicosia in Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea) have warm summers. This is the just qualification for a particular group, within own climate classification, nothing more.

Also, according to three the basic principles of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, if there are more versions - user must use neutral version. If all sources show - for example Los Angeles - as city with Mediterranean climate is ok, we can write "Los Angeles has a Mediterranean climate" but if there are various sources and various versions or information is controversial, we must use a more detailed description, for example "According to Koeppen climate classification, Los Angeles has a Mediterranean climate, according to XYZ climate classification, Los Angeles has a semi-desert climate". This is just an example. Subject is completed. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Every term is invented by someone. In cases where a location is classified differently in different systems, both/all can be stated. This is the case with Auckland, which is classified as oceanic (Cfb) in Koeppen and subtropical (Crbl) in Trewartha. Jim Michael (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to San Francisco. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not original research; it's how Koeppen classifies it. See warm-summer Mediterranean climate, where SF is given as one of the examples. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ankara

This edit is also controversial. According to map of location of Ankara and map by Köppen, Ankara lies within Continental Mediterranean climate, not hot-summer Mediterranean climate. Problem of Köppen climate classification is poor level of communication, not clear map (not show cities). There are many cities on the border of type of climate and you have to guess. Köppen climate classification even if is reliable source as such, the presentation of detailed information is scandalous and propably does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability, because informations from source must to be clear. Your description of the changes while violating the principle of Wikipedia:No original research. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Koeppen maps are not on a close enough scale to show all the boundaries, especially in a country such as Turkey where altitude differences and proximity to the sea cause large differences in the climate in location that are in close proximity. The climate statistics of Ankara are reliably sourced and qualify it as Csa under Koeppen. The urban heat island effect and terrain of mountains and plateau means that some nearby areas are Dsa, Dsb or Bsk. Istanbul is on the boundary of different types of climate. Jim Michael (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Above is a perfect example of breaking the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. User:ChamithN tried to explain it to you above. You can not analyze urban heat island effect + terrain of mountains + plateau means (...) + altitude differences + proximity to the sea = calculated - Csa. Source must clearly! show that Ankara has a hot summer Mediterranean climate. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do any original research. The climate stats for Istanbul are reliably sourced. I was explaining to you why a climate map covering Turkey cannot show all the boundaries between the climate types. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter that climate stats for Istanbul are reliably sourced and does not matter your explaining why a climate map covering Turkey cannot show all the boundaries between the climate types. Again: source must clearly! show that Ankara has a hot summer Mediterranean climate according to Wikipedia:Verifiability and you can not use analysis (see above) according to Wikipedia:No original research including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Criminals from Suffolk

Category:Criminals from Suffolk, 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. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

GILF

I've undone your edit to GILF because it wasn't linked to an article. A quick Google search shows very few results. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing talk page section titles

MOS guidelines concerning the proper Wikistyle of section titles do not apply to article talk pages. Please stop unnecessarily altering these section titles. Read WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Popcat

Hi Jim, I'm trying to understand what the purpose of tagging categories as being "underpopulated" is. You placed the tag on Category:20th-century_biologists (in 2010) (a category that now contains more than 1000 articles). So I would be interested in your thoughts on this. DexDor ^(talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At the time I placed that on there (over 5 years ago), it was underpopulated. It now has plenty of articles in it, so I've removed it. Once a category is adequately populated, the tag has served its purpose and can be removed. Jim Michael (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this to some of the categories I made for British TV seasons by year. I only created one to start with that was relinked on an article, but started making more but then I ran out of energy to populate them myself, so I appreciate you doing this. AnemoneProjectors 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Missing person cases in England has been nominated for discussion

Category:Missing person cases in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Rinder

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Rinder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joannie Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maori. 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) 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Memento mori

Thanks for pointing out the page Summer of Death. Please note that it has been nominated for deletion too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Very British Problems

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Very British Problems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pimping

1. . You should check out Urban Dictionary to see what the current meaning of "Pimpin" is. As a fan of TV you might have heard of "Pimp My Car" which has nothing to do with sex in any way shape or form.
2. . Also the text of the article does not confirm the song is about anything.
3. Your link for AZ lyrics is redundant AND
4. an copyright infringement (do not link to sites that infringe copyrights. (see WP:COPYVIOEL.

I shall make no further comment to show some good faith, but please let's use a little commonsense here. Cheers.

The lyrics are unambiguous that the protagonist of the song is a pimp - they say "I'm a pimp in every sense of the word". How can you or I know if a link does or does not include a copyvio? What more do you need to show that the song is about pimping? Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your interpretation which is WP:OR as to what the words are about and as it is OR, it is also non-defining. The copying of lyrics without permission is copyvio (which is why there aren't many lyrics on WP). MetroLyrics do have permission and is already linked at the bottom of the page. "It's big pimpin with Gs" (as the lyrics say) is nothing to do with whoredom it's about spending money, not making it as a pimp. Apologies, it wasn't Pimp My Car, it was Pimp My Ride. Still nothing to do with sex --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's about a pimp who makes a lot of money from his whores, then spends it. How is being a pimp in every sense of the word ambiguous and non-defining? He also says he made a mill off a sorry hoe - again that's definitely him being her pimp. Jim Michael (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that says so please add it to the article. Your opinion/reading of any lyric is worth the same as my opinion - nothing - and therefore is non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

How can being a pimp in every sense of the word and making a mill off a sorry hoe not refer to being an actual pimp? Jim Michael (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Per WP:FILMCAT and from what I understand to be the consensus at WP:FILM, we generally don't make genre-by-year categories, such as Category:1984 comedy films. Before you go adding this to more films or creating more categories like this, you should get consensus at WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that any such consensus exists. Horror films have long been categorised by year. Recent years of drama films were already categorised by year before I started to create cats for further years. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 1

Look, the police of Bryce Dejean-Jones death already stated that it was a mistake not a robbery. He thought he was entering his ex-girlfriend's apartment where his daughter is cause apparently it's clear he didn't realize where he was going which numerous reports have been stating as this situation was investigated. Not a robbery as the police have already stated. Also this is an encyclopedia not blog. So you are caring whether he's innocent or not. This is not the place for that. Again this is encyclopedia for information not to state your opinion on whether he's innocent or whatever you feel about it. Keep your personal feelings or opinion of this case to yourself. This is not the place to do that. That's all I'm saying. Have a nice day. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was a robbery. You're making it look like he innocently "entered". He in fact deliberately broke down the front door and bedroom door of an apartment. There's no innocent explanation for doing that. It's a serious crime and still would be even if it had been his ex-girlfriend's apartment that he'd broken into. Deliberately breaking into anyone's residence other than your own is a crime. I'm stating the facts as backed by reliable sources. You're trying to make it look like he accidentally just walked in and merely banged on the bedroom door. He used force to break both doors down - only then did the resident shoot the intruder dead. Why are you covering up BD-J's use of force? He got the wrong apartment, but the breaking in of the two doors was deliberate.

This should be discussed on the article's talk page, so that other editors of the article can see it - not my talk page where they won't. Jim Michael (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You clearly didn't hear me the first time which i clearly just told you. According to the investigation by the police, He went to the wrong floor mistakenly thought was his former girlfriend's apartment. It was reported that he thought she locked him out which that wasn't the case. He was at the wrong floor and wrong apartment. I'm going to tell you this again. If you spend your time to read every source instead of picking choosing. This is not the place for whether he's innocent or not. You seem like the only person in here that cares on how it looks. Clearly the police which they have sent to the residents that it was a mistake not a break-in. I'm not going back and forth. This is not the place for this. This encyclopedia for information. Keep your personal feelings or opinion of this case to yourself. Hopely we resolved this matter. Pmaster12 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I did read what you said, but what you said is untrue. It's you who is misrepresenting this case to make it look like he merely walked in. Read the sources. He definitely smashed in the doors of his ex-gf's neighbour's apartment. What you're covering up is that he deliberately smashed in two doors. Even if he'd done that to his ex-girlfriend's apartment it would still be a crime. It definitely was a break-in, just into a different apartment than he was targeting. I'm writing what actually happened; you're whitewashing it to make it look like he didn't do anything wrong. You're the only person who's trying to make it look like he didn't do anything wrong. It's you who's not being encyclopedic. Committing a crime against a different property than intended is still committing a crime.

Stop writing here. Write on the talk page of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep bring laws and crime which that is not the issue. You keep bringing up smashed in which that is not in every source. So stop bringing those words if you don't have no sources to back that up. Pmaster12 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources clearly state that he deliberately broke in the doors. That is not a reasonable innocent or legal thing to do. Those facts are relevant. Stop claiming he merely innocently walked in and knocked on the door. He did not - he used force to break in. Also, stop writing about it here - do so on the talk page of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siblings (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Girls' night out, Victory dance and Heartbroken. 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) 10:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Following the discussion at WT:FILM, please find the discussion here about umpmerging the year/genre film categories. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siblings (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chaos and Heartbreak. 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) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Omar Mateen

Mateen was not a New Yorker, he was a Floridian, regardless of where he was born. He did not become a criminal or notable in any way during his infancy/toddler years before his family moved to Florida. Quis separabit? 02:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Cats denoting where a person is from are about where they're from, not where they were living when they became notable. If he had been asked where he's from, he'd have said that he's originally from New York. Jim Michael (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that he would have said that; that's not logical, unless he was specifically asked where he was born, not "where he was from". Speculative on your part, anyway, I think. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would that not be logical? He wasn't merely born in NY - he lived there for the first few years of his life as well. When I've asked "where are you from?" to people who live somewhere other than where they're originally from, in most cases they tell me where they're (originally) from and where they live now. In this case, it would have been "I'm originally from New York, but I live in Florida" or "I'm originally from New York, but I've lived in Florida since I was little". Regarding the 'from' cats for Mateen, both NY & Florida apply to him. Saying he wasn't a New Yorker is ridiculous; it's reliably sourced that he was originally from NY. Jim Michael (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Categories

Hi Jim, thanks for adding some useful parent categories to category pages, and project banners to category talk pages.

However, please don't add {{WikiProject Categories}} to ordinary category pages. That banner is only appropriate on Wikipedia project pages, not categories for WP:Mainspace topics.

I hope you are enjoying it here – please keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Which article talk pages should have the WP Categories banner on them? What is and what isn't eligible should be made clear on the project page. I thought it was for categories, because it's the category project. Jim Michael (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking in Category:WikiProject Categories pages, I think only the pages that have "category", "categories" or "cat" after the colon should have the template (and therefore be in that category). – Fayenatic London 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standoff. 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) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:EPON

Please, don't remove related categories from the articles 2016 Nice attack and 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Current consensus is, per WP:EPON: "1) Keep both the eponymous category and the main article in the parent category". 46.200.26.232 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That duplication seems bizarre. What's the reasoning for having the cats on the article and the eponymous cat? Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason is to allow that articles (road incidents in 2016, for example) to be navigated together. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:21st century in Bavaria

Create Category:2000s in Bavaria also to build the correct structure. 46.200.26.232 (talk)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:2016 events by month

Please create a categories listed below as next step of categorization.

• Category:2016 sports events by month
  • Category:January 2016 sports events‎
  • Category:February 2016 sports events
  • Category:March 2016 sports events
  • Category:April 2016 sports events
  • Category:May 2016 sports events
  • Category:June 2016 sports events
  • Category:July 2016 sports events
  • Category:August 2016 sports events
  • Category:September 2016 sports events‎
  • Category:October 2016 sports events‎
  • Category:November 2016 sports events‎
  • Category:December 2016 sports events‎

95.133.149.157 (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Teacher (1974 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drifter. 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) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Granny's Guide to the Modern World, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page App. 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) 10:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Celebrity Big Brother contestants has been nominated for discussion

Category:Celebrity Big Brother contestants, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Serial killer project

Apply it to the all mass killing pages too including but not limited to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Porte_de_Vincennes_siege, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Paris_attacks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1990_Temple_Mount_riots and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre --yousaf465' 07:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fag enabler listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fag enabler. Since you had some involvement with the Fag enabler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote to Stage School (TV series)

Hi. I was just wondering--don't we try to avoid redlinks for hatnotes? I use Wikipedia on the mobile app, which doesn't give red-links as red, which makes it look like the app has experienced an error, rather than simply that an article hasn't been created yet (and wouldn't it be Stage School with the capitalisation, without the disambig)? Thought I'd check...  • DP •  ^{huh?} 19:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm about to create the article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay doke. I think you can claim the main article name, as above, since there doesn't seem to be a film or anything to compete for it.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was considering that, but Stage School might be too close to Stage school. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though I think it's unlikely anyone would capitalise when searching for the generic one. Far more likely the other way round, looking for the show and getting drama school. But as you like, of course.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 21:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Made in Chelsea cast members

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_9#Category:Made_in_Chelsea_cast_members, where the future of Category:Made in Chelsea cast members is being discussed. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Not Now, Comrade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charade and Farrago. 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) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Informers (2008 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doorman. 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) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bad Education (TV series) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Asilah 1981

I see you have reverted this editor. I have found them to be a chronic and persistent edit warrior. You may care to look at the Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar and Llanito pages. If it persists I suggest you contact one of the admins who commented there. Sad to say it's been impossible to deal with thus guy in talk unless an admin is there.18:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Knock, Knock, Ginger, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your revert

I recommend reviewing WP:BLP, WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS per your revert on Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. We don't include controversial information about living or recently dead people without (1) consensus and (2) conforming with WP:BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus to exclude his extensive criminal record. Criminal convictions are included on thousands of Wikipedia articles. Leaving it out gives an incomplete description of him which is biased massively in his favour. Jim Michael (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You gone and re-added it without discussion... if you want to offer a compromise, discuss it on the talk page. And on another acticle you've gone and made changes despite objections and ongoing discussions. Don't make page moves that are already being challenged... make a move request if there's objections as outlined on WP:NOTRM. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I re-added only part of it - as a compromise. I did discuss it on the talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

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.

What's Good for the Goose

added links pointing to Topless and Conference

First Day (The Inbetweeners)

added a link pointing to Dickhead

World of Weird

added a link pointing to End of the world

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

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.

The Great Riviera Bank Robbery

added links pointing to Sewer, Thieves' den, Firebrand and Getaway

Entertaining Mr Sloane (film)

added links pointing to Lodger, Drifter and Misdirection

2016 Hoboken train crash

added a link pointing to Attorney

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Entertainers from the Bronx has been nominated for discussion

Category:Entertainers from the Bronx, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Irvine, California climate

Your recent editing history at Irvine, California shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm clearly correct, even going by the inadequately detailed map you appear to be referring to on Climate of California. Orange County's coast is BSk (light orange on the map) and inland areas of OC are BSh (medium orange). Csa is yellow. The boundary between BSk and BSh is a yearly average of 18C, which Irvine is slightly above - hence it's BSh. Jim Michael (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just saw there was Koeppen conflict here. Maybe I can help resolve it.

According to the current Koeppen climate definitions, as listed out on its Wikipage (going by 2007 definitions), the threshold for a B climate is:

Mean annual precipitation in mm < 10 x P(threshold)

Since >70% of Irvine's rainfall falls in the winter (12.68 in in winter half year vs 1.64 in summer half year), P(threshold) is defined as: 2 x mean annual temperature in Celsius + 28

Irvine's mean annual temperature = 18.5C (calculated from 1981-2010 data normals, listed on its wiki page) Irvine's mean annual precipitation = 363.9 mm So P(threshold) = (2 x 18.5) + 28 = 65

Since 363.9 < 10 x 65, and it's annual temperature is just above 18C, at 18.5C, Irvine is clearly BSh.

I'd also like to add that the climate map that you're referring to as clearly inadequate happens to use what is widely recognized as one of the best quality climate datasets available - the PRISM dataset from the University of Oregon: http://prism.oregonstate.edu/ It has a precision of 800 meters per pixel.

If you really feel it's inadequate, I'd challenge you to find a better quality dataset and make one yourself. If the map inadequacy is a matter of it not being large enough in scale, I also made a climate map specific to Southern California, allowing a closer-up view of the fine-scale variations in Southern California's climate (see Southern California).

I'd also like to note that the previous California Koeppen map had the greater Los Angeles area listed as Cfa, humid subtropical. Redtitan (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. When I said that the California Koppen map is inedequate, I only meant in terms of the the scale - making it difficult to determine by that map which climate type some settlements are in. I wasn't claiming that there were any mistakes in the map or the data that was used to create it. The map of Southern California is clearer in regard to that area - I hadn't seen that map. I don't know why anyone would have classified LA as Cfa - that type doesn't exist in SoCal at all. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, and sorry if I got a little worked up there. Yeah, the previous map had some major errors - it was manually vectorized from another map, and I think they input the wrong type for the LA area. Redtitan (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Cold-summer Mediterranean

Hi, I noticed you changed the wording on the cold-summer Mediterranean climate article from West Coast to WA, OR, and CA. I'm okay with that - just wanted to note that the West Coast is broadly used to refer to the states themselves and not just to the immediate coastal areas, as noted in the wiki article for the West Coast of the US. Redtitan (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed it because the Cfc areas aren't on or near the coast - they're high-altitude inland areas.

Do many people who live 100, 200 or 300 miles from the Pacific coast say that they live on the West Coast of the US? Jim Michael (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant Csc - and you're right - they definitely are somewhat inland from the coast and all high-altitude. I live almost 100 miles inland in WA state, and would definitely say I live in a West Coast state. Lived over 300 miles away from the coast, in the far eastern parts of WA state, and people referred to it as the West Coast, when referencing the greater region relative to other parts of the United States. It's shorthand for 'West Coast states' - a term inclusive of WA, OR, and CA.

Pacific States would be only other equivalent term, but always includes Alaska and Hawaii, while those states are much more rarely grouped in with the West Coast, especially since Alaska has a coast on the Arctic Ocean. Redtitan (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That being said, there are a few Csc areas in upland regions of the island of Hawaii. Apparently, they're far north enough to sit within the influence of the North Pacific High and have dry summers, while being high enough in altitude to have a cool climate. So I should probably remake that map and think of a more suitable title there - that map was the first one I made, before I'd made a Koeppen map of Hawaii.

A few pixels of Csc also fell right on the Nevada side of the CA-NV border in the Sierra Nevada. Perhaps "Distribution of Csc climate in the Western United States" would be broad enough, while still being concise. Redtitan (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean Csc.

It probably should be reworded. Even if some people who live inland say that they live on the West Coast, we shouldn't describe the Csc locations as being on the coast. A map of Csc locations elsewhere in the world would also be useful in that section. It's a rare type of climate - even more so when 0C is used as the boundary between C and D.

So far, I've only found one location outside of North and South America with a Csc climate: Røst, Norway, and added it to the section. I created the section for Csc as well. It's been an overall negelected climate type. I think there was two or three sentences on it in the Koeppen climate page before I did anything. The page was quite a bit larger with more examples, but another user had strong feelings about having a O deg C isotherm for any C climate, and removed them. Redtitan (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section be renamed Cool-summer Mediterranean? Locations with cold summers are E, not C. Jim Michael (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually that's not entirely correctly - refer to the table here: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1633/2007/hess-11-1633-2007.pdf

Climates that are 'cold' are E (climate with no month above 10C). Temperate climates with 'cold summers' are given the subtype 'c'.

I had a lot of trouble wondering what Csc should be named. It had been given the very confusing name "dry-summer maritime subalpine climate", which was not backed up the literature anywhere. There's a lengthy talk-section on the Koeppen climate classification page about it. Ultimately, I referred to the literature, and went with the naming convention in this article: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1633/2007/hess-11-1633-2007.html and this article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257742374_Using_the_Koppen_classification_to_quantify_climate_variation_and_change_An_example_for_1901-2010

Using 'cool-summer Mediterranean' could lead to some serious confusion, because that term is sometimes used for 'Csb', usually referred to as 'warm-summer Mediterranean'. For example, Csb is called 'cool-summer Mediterranean' in many city climate sections (see Coombs,_British_Columbia), and is listed as another name for Csb in the Mediterranean climate page. Based on the possible confusion and the lack of literature backing for the 'cool-summer' name, I'd strongly recommend sticking 'cold-summer Mediterranean'. Redtitan (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to qualify my position - I can find at least one article backing the use of 'cool-summer Mediterranean' for Csb. However, it's from 1973, and almost all recent articles on climate refer to Csb as 'warm-summer Mediterranean' Redtitan (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles in which the climate is described wrongly. Editors on San Francisco#Climate repeatedly reverted my correction that it has warm summers - they insist that the summers are cool, despite it being Csb, not Csc. Seattle (which is Csb) is described as oceanic on Oceanic climate#Precipitation, saying that it has adequate and reliable rain year-round. In reality, Seattle has dry summers despite its false reputation for having high rainfall (NYC is much wetter, but it doesn't have a reputation as a wet city). On several Australian city and town articles, editors have reverted my corrections. They insist that hot summers are merely warm, that warm/mild winters are cool/cold etc. Sydney#Climate, which has very mild winters, is wrongly described as having cool winters. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too. I suspect there's a lot of locals that don't like how the perceptions of their local climate seem contradicted by the words used by the Koeppen system. I've done a lot of Koeppen climate classifications for towns in the Western US and have generally stayed away from making edits on the larger cities for that reason. Redtitan (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much of it is by locals or not, but it makes even less sense if it is. How could anyone think that Sydney has cool winters, when they're clearly very mild? Someone from Dallas insisted that summers in Dallas are warm in the day and so cool at night that you need a sweater when going out, despite the fact that its summers are long and very hot. The same person also insisted that Dallas has severely cold winters. Someone else insisted that Bordeaux has a Mediterranean climate. When I've corrected things, consensus has in some cases gone against me, even though I've proven I'm correct.

There's also confusion caused by climate maps being created that use terms which aren't in widespread use (such as 'continental Mediterranean'). Another issue is that climate stats by some national organisations describe climates of various location within their own countries by national standards, not internationally accepted ones such as Koeppen. This includes Australian sources stating that Canberra has a continental climate (despite it actually being well within Cfb).

There's often a big difference between the official description and perception. For example, many people think that only frost-free places such as Brisbane are humid subtropical and won't accept that it also includes places with quite snowy winters, such as Milan and New York City. Jim Michael (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Film categories2

I'm not sure if you're aware, but we generally don't sort categories alphabetically in film categories. It makes it much more difficult to tell when categories are missing. Please see WP:FILMCAT for instructions. I would ask that you stop sorting film categories alphabetically when they're already sorted this way. Also, categories are supposed to be defining characteristics of a film. Unless there are reliable sources in the article that identify a film as a drama, it generally shouldn't have "drama film" categories added. Many films have a few dramatic scenes or action sequences; this doesn't mean they should have a bunch of genres tacked on to them. It makes navigation difficult when the most appropriate categories are buried amid all the tangentially-related ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't added anything tangential. All the cats I added are defining. Jim Michael (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you again. Can you please stop sorting film categories alphabetically? I've explained above why this makes it difficult for other editors to maintain categories. If someone asks you stop doing something, it is considered polite to at least discuss it with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Which one have I wrongly ordered today? Jim Michael (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it's kind of picky and a minor issue. MarnetteD suggested here that maybe it'd be best if I sought consensus before getting too uppity about it, and he's probably right. I think the edit that set me off was this one, where the categories were previously ordered per WP:FILMCAT. I like to think that I'm a reasonable person, so it it causes less drama, I'll just let it go, but I wish we could come to some kind of compromise. Like, if they're already sorted that way, maybe leave them that way. If they're not sorted like that, go ahead and do whatever. It's not like I care that much what happens outside my watchlist, as I'm not working on improving those articles. The articles that I sorted per FILMCAT are easier for me to work on because I know where to find the production company categories (at the bottom). I don't know which films Warner Bros. or Disney produced, so having to go searching for them in the categories is frustrating for me. If you're not going to work on an article long-term, I don't see why you would even care about something like this; why not just leave the sorting alone? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it stated on any policy or guideline how exactly the cats should be ordered. Many films have their cats ordered alphabetically; many others aren't in any discernable order. To me, alphabetical ordering makes sense and makes it easier to find the relevant cats. You're saying that finding the studios together at the end is most important for you, but I doubt that many people think likewise. I've watched thousands of films and there are very few of whom I know which studios produced them. If there's a discussion about how film cats are ordered, please tell me of it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I started one at WT:FILM#Film categories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hot in Cleveland

Category:Hot in Cleveland was deleted at CfD because because it contained only 3 articles, one of which was a navbox. The general rule of thumb is that a category should contain 5 or more articles. Because it was deleted at CfD it should never have been recreated, especially because the same problems exist. Depopulating the category and nominating it for speedy deletion is merely complying with the CfD outcome. if you repopulate the category again, we can go through the CfD process again, but it's just going to end up with the same outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The same problems don't exist, as I've explained clearly. It was a new show then - 6 y ago. There is much more material now - and the navbox no longer exists. Therefore the two delete reasons are no longer valid. Take it to CfD if you like. Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Being a new show is irrelevant. The category was deleted because it only contained 3 links. Even with the episode article, it still only contains 3 links. Nothing has changed and the original deletion reason is still valid. There is no more material for the category - I really don't know where you get that from. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for the pilot and each season exist now - that's where I get it from. There was another reason for deleting - the existence of the navbox - which has since been deleted. Jim Michael (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hot in Cleveland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hot in Cleveland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing other people's comments on talk pages

Please stop changing other people's talk page comments, as you did here and here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jim Michael. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve A Granny's Guide to the Modern World

Hi, I'm Space Infinite. Jim Michael, thanks for creating A Granny's Guide to the Modern World!

Lithopsian has just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. THE INFINITE SPACE X 09:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:American prequel films has been nominated for discussion

Category:American prequel films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

British Pakistanis

Please do not add or change content, as you did at British Pakistanis, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Botroseya Church bombing

Your edit was to add the category, Murder in Egypt. We already have this categorized as

• Islamist attacks on churches
• ISIL terrorist incidents
• ISIL terrorist incidents in Egypt
• Improvised explosive device bombings in Egypt
• Mass murder in 2016
• Massacres in places of worship.

Isn't that enough? Our responsibility is to report what happened, according to the available sources. We are not here to prosecute or judge, tempting as that is. Let's leave that to others.Fconaway (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Murder in Egypt isn't a subcat of any of the other cats on the article. No-one's disputing that it was a mass murder in Egypt, so the cat is valid. Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Murder is a tame characterization, considering that 25 people died and another 49 were wounded in a suicide bombing. Egypt has a long history of political and religious violence, from at least the assassination of Boutros Ghali in 1910. This significance is lost if the event is simply seen as a murder.Fconaway (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was murder and is thus categorised as such. Perhaps Category:Mass murder in Egypt should be created. Jim Michael (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:American chase films has been nominated for discussion

Category:American chase films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The Goonies

There is no discussion within the article of this film being considered a "Chase film". Consequently, it is inappropriate to apply such categories. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You were merely changing the cat from Category:American chase films to Category:Chase films. Jim Michael (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I caught that and have removed both categories at this time. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You merely removing American from the cat was the reason that I reverted it twice. I couldn't understand why you were claiming there wasn't proof that the film is American.

In regard to whether or not it's a chase film, the Plot section makes it sound like most of the film is a chase of sorts. Jim Michael (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the film centers around a chase of sorts (or a treasure hunt, or crime, or what-not), but the categories suggest that "chase film" is a genre. I'm not sure whether that's true or not (maybe a question for WT:FILM?), but there's no Chase film article to refer back to, so us calling it a "chase film" without a clear definition, based only on what we as editors make of the film's plot, is original research. Perhaps we could find reliable sources that have referred to it as a "chase film"? That would be a good argument both for the category's inclusion and overall existence. Cheers, and Happy New Year if we don't speak again before then! DonIago (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of massacres in Turkey

See my edit about your edit--Quisqualis (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:LGBT broadcasters from the United Kingdom has been nominated for discussion

Category:LGBT broadcasters from the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:American crime drama television series has been nominated for discussion

Category:American crime drama television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JDDJS (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:People with anorexia nervosa has been nominated for discussion

Category:People with anorexia nervosa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Deaths in East of England

A tag has been placed on Category:Deaths in East of England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:English male screenwriters has been nominated for discussion

Category:English male screenwriters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. JDDJS (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blonde (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Dougherty. 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) 09:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Blanking

If you continue blanking sourced categories, as you did in You're Next, I will start a thread at WP:ANI to have you topic banned from editing categories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing two categories isn't regarded as blanking. The only other time that you've accused me of wrongly removing categories was on 13 Sins, which you insist is a comedy film despite it only containing one black comedy scene (the corpse in the diner) and the large majority of reliable sources saying it's a horror (thriller) film. You only added a ref saying that it's a comedy film after I'd removed the comedy cats from it.

You added the ref to You're Next, which won't load for me, after I removed the comedy cats. There was no source for it being comedy at the time I removed the comedy cats. Does that ref actually say that it's a comedy film, rather than a horror film that contains black comedy? Die Hard contains humour, but no-one claims it's a comedy film. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Kill List, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting or warring - the lead doesn't mention thriller at all. It says crime drama psychological horror film. If it's a thriller, that should definitely be stated in the lead. I changed the cats because thriller wasn't one of the genres stated in the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Television series about suburbia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Television series about suburbia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Prevan (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject tagging

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Death, terrorist attacks are not in their scope. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms does not deal with attacks that use firearms; it's mainly for weapons and their manufacturers. ansh666 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't know that the 2017 Portland train attack was a terror attack - it's not in any terrorism cats. Jim Michael (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, true, reading the article. I've seen coverage of it treating it as one, so I guess I thought it was considered as such. Feel free to put it back. Please do follow the scopes on other articles, though. Thanks! ansh666 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:AN

WP:DEADHORSE

More constructively: if you want that story off the home page, you'd be advised to work on improving articles about newer stories, not engaging in pointless arguments on WP:AN. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've commented on AN. My comments are civil and relevant to the section I commented in. I answered questions and comments. I didn't go off-topic. My case is clear: several people - including me - said during the original discussion and after it was posted that it's not important enough to be on ITN. Also, there was not a consensus to post - look at the discussion and the request to pull it. I've not been pointless and I improve many articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I merely meant that your comments on WP:AN are unlikely to get you anywhere. Power~enwiki (talk)

I went there because it was linked after the discussion was prematurely closed on ITN/C - it seemed the most appropriate place. Most of the objectors there didn't go to the AN discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Power~enwiki, I think your post above was wholly misguided. Jim's post at AN may have been contentious, but it is far from "pointless". Are you really aware of how much Jim has contributed to Wikipedia over the years? And always in a very polite and understated way. I'm very surprised and disappointed by your post here. Martinevans123 (talk)

Thanks - yes I'm still being templated as though I'm a newbie and talked down to as though I'm an idiot or a novice. My comments at AN were relevant and worthwhile. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that my comments were pointless. The AN discussion was started because of the wrongful posting to ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly making statements like "I made a clear and sound argument for not posting it - I didn't merely vote." and "It didn't have consensus, as several people said in the discussion after it was posted. I'm not arguing for the article to be deleted. I'm say?ing it's nowhere near important enough to be on ITN." is counter-productive. There's no argument that the admins did anything incorrectly here, he merely doesn't like the article. The correct remedy is to nominate better ITN candidates, not to engage in lengthy discussions on WP:AN that are unlikely to have any outcome. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I made clear and relevant statements. I answered questions put to me. I had to repeat myself because I was being misunderstood and was asked the same questions repeatedly. I don't dislike the article. I object to minor domestic stories being posted, without consensus, using bogus justifications. This is the only time I've been to AN and I was there for the same reason that the person who started the discussion was. How can that be inappropriate? Jim Michael (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the template. Please stop beating the dead horse, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, your User page tells us that you've been "active" for just three months. If this is really all you have to contribute, I'd suggest that you're better off being more inactive. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"it's been policy for years that we exclude domestic events"

Please remember that a WIkipedia policy is very different from an unwritten Wikiproject guideline. If you really mean "policy", you will be able to point to a page which says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." at the top. If not, don't claim it to be "policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's a policy, guideline or whatever the terminology - it's the way we've been doing things for years on recent years articles. You're going against it, whereas I'm in line with it. International media coverage doesn't make an event internationally notable. Take it to Talk:2017 and Talk:2015. Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See below, it's not a policy, so stop claiming it to be so. If you don't like it, work on it, but don't claim it to be a policy. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning

You've now exceed 3 reverts at 2015. Please revert your last revert or I will have to bring this to the attention of the edit warring talkpage and seek your block. You had plenty of opportunity to discuss this, but you just reverted, four times. I'll give you ten minutes to do something productive here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I've done 3 reverts there, after you did three first. Stop talking down to me, following me and threatening me. Jim Michael (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than a few hours. If you wish to be uncivil to me, I will simply press submit on the 3RR report I've made. Not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've remained civil. It's you who's being patronising and threatening to me. I've reverted myself anyway, so it's a moot point. Stop making demands and giving deadlines. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not at all patronising. I asked you to revert yourself to prevent you being blocked, you did that, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't ask - you angrily demanded, with a deadline that you think you have a right to impose. Your whole attitude to me is one of being patronising, insulting and pushing me around. Talk to other editors as equals, not as though you're their boss. You're going against a long-standing consensus on recent year articles to exclude domestic events. Having an article and being on ITN doesn't make an event or death important enough to be on a RY article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Your recent editing history at 2017 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The Rambling Man suggested I notify others who may be edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on RfCs

Please don't comment on RfCs by editing the listing page. Your edits will only be undone, most likely when Legobot (talk · contribs) next runs at 19:01 (UTC). Instead, comment on the RfC itself, which is at Category talk:Deaths by type of illness#rfc E83A0BD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - which I've reverted. My reply is now in the correct place. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Amman attack

Please consider that the current event is few hours old. It may well be a disagreement turning into fight and shooting. Incident would be more secure. Attack suggest we already know who started the violence, which, event with current sources, is really not trustable enough. --Yug (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is written as though we know it was an attack. I don't see any mainstream reliable sources saying otherwise. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating solid articles on important topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Preview

Please use the "preview" button as every edit you make to, e.g. Talk:2017, you then quickly adjust, sometimes two or three times. This causes edit conflicts, loss of material, and general frustration. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What made you think that it's an attack page? It's about a notable grooming and sex trafficking ring that operated for a few years. Eighteen people have been convicted of serious crimes. The article is backed by reliable, mainstream media sources. Jim Michael (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Konstanz shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Konstanz shooting 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/Konstanz shooting 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Move reversion

I reverted your move of Judy Smith homicide to Murder of Judy Smith. I understand you wanted to bring it into "the usual format", and that's fine, but an increasing number of editors have begun to realize that format is in conflict with several core editorial policies when applied to unsolved killings where the perpetrators might yet be conceivably identified and prosecuted.

"Murder" is properly a judicial verdict and a judicial verdict alone, since it includes proof that a person of sound mind purposely undertook to cause the death of another. Only when someone has been convicted or pled guilty to the charge can it be properly used, both in the media and in our article titles. Before then, it is more appropriate to describe such deaths as homicides, the purely technical term for any death of a human being caused by another person that does not go into intent by the other person (self-defense killings and deaths caused through recklessness or negligence are considered homicides despite the lack of intent).

The Associated Press changed its very influential stylebook in 2013 to reflect this. As a former journalist myself, and recognizing that whether we like it or not Wikipedia is often a first source of information for many people, I believe we should do well to consider this reasoning and change our practices accordingly. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on 2017 Parsons Green bombing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Specifically, it is not acceptable to accuse editors, with whom you disagree, of "vandalism". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I usually do - except when I know that an edit was deliberately bad. You're a very experienced editor and you know full well that you shouldn't remove an applicable notice about a current move discussion. You've removed it repeatedly - there's no chance that you did that in good faith.

Don't template highly experienced editors and talk down to them as though they're newcomers. You can clearly see that I've been here for years.

Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 Brussels attack

Can I convince you to let me merge this article you created to Terrorist activity in Belgium? I won't go too in-depth into this -- unless you want a longer rationale -- but this incident clearly fails the requirements for long-term impact, significant impact to a wide region, and further coverage beyond the news, all outlined further at our guidelines for events. Had this attack been successful (thank God it was not) then there would certainly be a claim for notability. But it turned out to be a brief security scale with nothing further to make it notable, which the guidelines for events and news demands. However, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, most of the information can be assimilated into the article I mentioned above and the title would be redirected. It would not count against you as "deleted" and readers can still find the essential parts of the incident without the "newsy" writing prose some recent event articles suffer from. Does that sound good?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The article's history says that Raevhuld created it. It's not for you or me alone to decide to merge it. You could take it to AfD. Jim Michael (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why I thought you created it. My apologies. I'll consider doing that but I would much rather merge it if possible. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

2017

I've been a regular over at RY for a couple years now, and I’ve interacted with you and watched you interact with others many times over the years. In my experience, you've always been civil, which I really appreciate. But never have I seen anything like what is going on right now with you over at 2017. What you're doing right now is not helping the situation. Comments like these (I'm referring to the bottom comment in both of the last two) and these don't advance the conversation at all. I think most users here can identify with the feeling of wanting to respond when you feel like your arguments aren't being heard or you're being unfairly criticized. I know how frustrating that can be. And it looks to me like you're getting frustrated (which is totally understandable), but if you continue down the path you're going, I only see more frustration for you. To that end, I would like to second 62.255's advice: "!vote, give your reason, and then step back." Cheers, -- irn (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually came here to expand on my advice, in light of the fact that many people on RY are calling for Jim to be TBanned, which isn’t something I want to happen. Jim, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But when your reasoning has been discussed and annulled (many, many times) it really is time to put that reasoning to bed, rather than repeat it over and over and over and over, flooding every conversation and bludgeoning discussion as if someone has pressed your reset button and everything discussed prior has been forgotten.

The argument ‘local event’ is not sound reasoning. It stems from a countermanded essay which is no longer relevant. Everything is ‘local’. The importance of an event is not automatically diminished by the fact that it has had no direct further reaching impact on any other countries. It could quite easily be considered significant by many other measures, one of which is the subjective importance people associate with it. Not just editors here !voting on its importance, but people around the world ascribing importance to it by wanting to know about it and expecting it to be mentioned. When you stubbornly insist your experience is an infallible reflection of the wider world and that nobody could possibly find such an event interesting because neither you, or your friends do, this becomes an issue of POV-pushing. You would be fine saying “I don’t see the interest in this event, and in my circles this sort of thing is not discussed – I therefore would say exclude.” What isn’t helpful is saying “I’m not interested in this event, neither are my friends, therefore nobody else could possibly be interested” and then ‘attacking’ anyone who suggests they genuinely are interested and do discuss such topics.

As an example, I went round to my mum’s house for lunch the other day and she quite naturally interjected our feast with “My goodness, did you hear about those poor people in West Africa?” The time before it was “I wonder what on earth will come of all this fuss in Spain?” I distinctly remember fascination with the solar eclipse, and several of the terrorist events that have occurred this year. This isn’t a morbid unpopular discussion – people do talk about things that shock them, crickey – much conversations revolve around “did you hear about Mrs Batersby next door falling off her ladder?” or some kid that got hit by a car outside the school, or Dave losing his wallet, or Simon’s car breaking down, or someone falling ill etc. It’s human nature to want to share expression of sadness/shock/distaste/anger/annoyance. It’s not ‘boring’ or ‘unpopular’ to talk about such things; it’s stuff that’s happened, that’s resonated and that’s on the mind. You can say that you don’t talk about XYZ. But you cannot assert that others can’t possibly talk about it either, and that if they do they must be some sort of outcast. I find that rather offensive, more than anything else.

I understand your concern, that RY articles will become long lists of replicated data with little to define the information included as special. I don’t think you should concern yourself though, because I believe where we are headed is a clean break from cherry-picked, duplicated data entirely. We are suffering all these problems because what we are trying to do is problematic. Cherry-picking data is pure POV. Wikipedia should not be POV. Hopefully the resolution – to abandon cherry-picking entirely - will actually be mutually pleasing to us all, you included, seeing as the headache of maintaining these problematic lists could be expelled altogether. Let’s give the readers what they seem to enjoy most, and what we should be providing. Complete, unbiased, reference to everything we can. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I realise that Catalonia's attempt to break away is one of the most publicised stories of the year, all the more so due to it happening very soon after the terror attacks in the same region. I haven't claimed it isn't. It's my personal opinion that it isn't worthy of inclusion in 2017 unless its independence is recognised by Spain or other countries. Without that, Catalonia isn't a country.

Talking about various trivia in the lives of various people whom they know - often to people who don't know the people whom they're talking about - is a common pastime for a large number of middle-aged and elderly women. Them talking about a natural disaster that happened thousands of miles away isn't typical.

I personally knew someone who became a ridiculed outcast and was labelled boring and miserable simply for once mentioning a natural disaster that happened thousands of miles away.

The idea that we want to make the page as enjoyable as possible, maximise page views etc. isn't something I agree with. It's not a stated goal of WP, which isn't a commercial site. If we were aiming for the greatest popularity, we would go down the tabloid journalism route of sensationalism and gossip. It was the case for years that the main article for each recent year was for international events and deaths of internationally notable people - and the many sub-articles were for in-depth coverage of various topics and countries. Jim Michael (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You aren’t really getting it. It’s comments like those above, in which you force your narrow anecdotal experience (which depict people as atypical outcasts for taking interest in things you don’t) onto the wider community, which are causing friction. I’m asking that you stop this, for your sake as much as the community’s.

You are also hugely missing the point about page popularity. I don’t believe the point is to try and maximise hits. The point is to use data to ascertain how helpful a page is. What is the point in pursuing a problematic venture if it isn’t being used? What is the point in trying to override a page that is? It’s just a waste of time. Like it or not, we ARE trying to provide a useful source of information. If we ignored usefulness and ended up with a site that is never visited, what is the point in it? So it’s ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia isn’t about providing content people want.

I agree – Wikipedia isn’t a tabloid medium. Tabloid media target a specific demographic, in order to exploit a bias for commercial gain. Wikipedia is a complete data source, it isn’t (and shouldn’t be) targeting any demographic. We don’t have, and shouldn’t have, a bias to push and exploit. Which is why we should avoid creating content that is tailored according to POV. But using a clandestine selection process, creating selective, subjective abridged lists from complete information is doing exactly that. Stuff happens, we record it, and we categorise it in a way that people can find the information. End of. You contradict yourself arguing that we aren’t a tabloid, yet insist we do something that is entirely tabloid, or that we SHOULD be making these lists, because other tabloids do. You seem ever so confused, I struggle to understand your motivation.

Your final contradiction, is thus – you argue that we shouldn’t be creating content to attract hits and garner popularity – yet you conversely argue that we need to create cherry-picked lists for readers, because the complete lists are exhaustive and people want snappy abridgements. Again, you don’t seem to argue from a consistent outlook.

Whatever the disagreements are, I would have thought that you’d be on board with doing something simple, that reduces the workload, is easy to maintain, circumvents subjectivity and avoids controversial processes, and needless duplication of information. So surely abandoning cherry-picked lists and opting for sensible, logical and practical cataloguing of complete information, is a way forward we could all get behind? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My experiences aren't narrow - I've known hundreds of people from a wide demographic distribution and have worked in a variety of places.

The RY criteria weren't clandestine - the guideline was there for anyone to read.

I've never said that we should target a particular demographic, nor that we should do anything tabloidish. I said that one of the reasons why the main page for each year should have a list of important events and deaths is because many reliable/quality media sources do. I said that we should not include the sorts of celebrity stories that are widely covered in the tabloid media, such as events in the lives of the Kardashian/Jenner family.

I said that most events and deaths should be excluded from the main article and put on the sub-articles in order to avoid excessive duplication and to provide a international-only year for the main article. A box at the top right gives links to many sub-articles, where the reader can easily find an sub-article about the year in the topic or country which (s)he wants to find out about.

I believe I've been consistent for several years in my approach to year articles. For the vast majority of that time, that was in line with the consensus for the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Mate, they sound narrow. You basically argue that because you don’t talk about something, nobody else would either. That’s absolutely not the case and it is bizarre you insist it is.

The RY criteria were entirely clandestine. No reader has any idea that the RY article is incomplete, why information may be missing and how information is cherry-picked.

“Reliable/quality media” cherry-pick according to POV in line with their target demographic. You agree then that we don’t have a demographic. Therefore we should not be selective of information, using bias that we should not be adopting as a neutral complete source of information.

An “International only” criterion has proven to be completely subjective. We can’t even agree on what that even means or how we should measure it. Again, we should not be applying bias to form articles.

I'm disappointed that, in the same way you are resistant to improving our Year articles, you are equally resistant to improving yourself as an editor and seem to want to argue against anything that is presented to you. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The large number of people whom I know and have known are from a wide variety of walks of life.

I didn't say that because I don't talk about something, that no-one else does. I'm saying that none of the people whom I've known talked or wanted to talk about natural disasters which happened hundreds/thousands of miles away (with the exception of one who did - who was ostracised and ridiculed for doing so).

I'd said that the RY criteria should be clearer, but there weren't enough people who wanted it clarified.

We should take info from various reliable sources - in order to avoid/reduce bias.

I have improved myself as an editor. I don't agree that adding domestic events to year articles is a step forward - we already have sub-articles for that. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim, I’m going to have to seriously warn you here – I’ve asked you several times now, to stop repeating the charge that people who discuss topics that you do not, are to be ostracised and ridiculed. Please do not do it again, its offensive, wrong and rather pathetic. Are you seriously telling me that because one of your ex-mates was rather disturbingly bullied and dumped by your group for innocently discussing an earthquake, you will forever insist without flexibility, that earthquakes are a topic that nobody in the world would or should talk about? Come on, that's completely preposterous - please drop it.

As for the issue at hand, you have just ignored everything I’ve said. Stating RY criteria just needs to be clearer does not address any of the points I raised above, notably: “Why are we doing this?”, “Should we be doing this?” and the fact that “how do we do this?” will inherently result in POV bias. You don’t endear yourself by swerving discussion points you find difficult. If you find these points difficult to answer, don’t you think that’s a significant indication that I’m right in suggesting the answers are: “No logical reason”, “No” and “we can’t”. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You're choosing to come to my talk page, commenting and asking me questions. I'm replying to you honestly. I didn't say that anyone should be ostracised and ridiculed - I said that it happened to someone whom I knew. He wasn't a friend of mine, he was a colleague - and he was hated from the day he mentioned an earthquake until the day he left several months later. It wasn't 'my group' - I didn't choose my colleagues, nor did I have any say over what they thought or did. I'm not saying that no-one should talk about natural disasters that happen hundreds/thousands of miles away - I'm saying that doing so would in most cases make a person very unpopular.

I have given the best answers I can. I believe that the RY criteria, while flawed, were better than the previous complete lack of inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are a lost cause, Jim. I asked you to stop suggesting that people talking about disasters in other countries would make them unpopular and hated (utterly dumbfounded by this ridiculous notion - of course people share their dismay at such things) but you keep repeating it. You can do what you like on your Talk Page but if you push this agenda elsewhere I will have to take it to ANI. You are being highly offensive and passive aggressive, and I guess that's it for this conversation. I had hoped you would heed the advice of Irn above, others on the project talk pages and me here, but it seems like you aren't interested in working together, listening to people's concerns, or improving yourself as an editor. So I see no point in further interaction with you, which is such a pity. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm nothing of the sort; talking down to me won't work. As I've told you, I knew someone who became an outcast simply for talking about an earthquake that happened thousands of miles away. I have worked in a diverse range of workplaces and have worked with hundreds of people who were from many different walks of life and who represent a broad spectrum of society. He was the only person whom I have heard talk about a natural disaster at work. I've also never heard the subject raised in any social setting. Most people aren't interested in the many natural disasters that happen a long distance away and don't involve anyone whom they know. I only mention it again because you choose to come to my talk page to repeatedly claim that it's usual to talk about foreign natural disasters at work.

If you don't like what I write here, then don't choose to repeatedly come here and talk to me. I've never left a comment on your talk page and I have no intention of doing so. You are extremely welcome to leave me alone permanently. I'm not pushing any agenda or being offensive or passive-aggressive at all. If you find my ordinary, civil conversation to be offensive, then you are very thin-skinned and are certainly in the wrong place. I have worked with many people on many articles for several years and have improved as an editor. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong. I'm not aiming to win your approval, I don't care what you believe and I'm not interested in you in any way. Goodbye. Jim Michael (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:May 2018 sports events in the United States

If you want to use this category please create it. Dont leave it red. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't create that cat; I changed the cats on it. I've created the the cat May 2018 sports events in North America that I added to that article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss page move for Sutherland Springs, thanks

Can you please discuss page moves on the talk page first? Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've replied on Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When the ref

Is already there please do not tag it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:British mystery television series by decade

Hi,

I have started a discussion in connection with Category:British mystery television series by decade which you recently started, which I thought you might want to contribute to. Thanks, Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jim Michael. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:2017 in Manhattan has been nominated for discussion

Category:2017 in Manhattan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:2017 Washington train derailment ‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Natureium (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The WP:DEATH banner is being repeatedly removed, despite the fact that the article is definitely within the scope of the project. The ridiculous 'reason' for removing it is because a tiny number of people dislike the design of the nested banner. Jim Michael (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of George and Mildred episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Superstore (TV series)

I get your point, but that's no reason to remove a comment from a talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it is, because the comment didn't raise a valid point. The article should obviously be written in American English, and as the reply says, the comment was incorrect. Additionally, there was no reason for you to remove the relevant project banners. Jim Michael (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments don't get removed unless they're things such as vulgarity or discussing the show itself instead of discussing the article. Your second warning for violating WP:3RR is below. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. Unconstructive, irrelevant comments (which the comment in question is) should be removed.

I haven't breached 3RR, because it is you who is vandalising by repeatedly, unjustifiably removing relevant project banners without explanation.

Stop templating me, I'm a very experienced and highly competent editor who has performed tens of thousands of good edits. Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:1990s LGBT comedy television series has been nominated for discussion

Category:1990s LGBT comedy television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Hi Jim Michael. At this edit, you added the WikiProject Wiltshire template to the talk page. No problem with that, but you also assessed the article on our behalf, and you don't seem to have any connection with our WikiProject. I am going to revise the assessment, this is not really a high-importance article for us. In future it would be appreciated if you would simply add the template. Moonraker (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The UK banner was there, which was too broad, so I replaced the UK banner with the Wilts banner, leaving its class and importance ratings as they were. I also added the British crime and UK politics banners. I didn't assess its importance, I left it the same as it was on the UK banner. Jim Michael (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Beavis and Butt-Head episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hideout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

once

the thought police arrive time to burrow. time, space and black holes are correlatable to argue that black is not in fact black but a very weird version of purple. Also it is all relative, they end with skulls like that in time, but for the moment they have purple sequins. best to burrow, below the permafrost. If that all seems strange, I do get worse. JarrahTree 15:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't recognise that - is it from a book or film? Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

neither - its more an allusion that could be quite complicated to explain here in relation to a number of things. apology if it doesnt make any sense JarrahTree 16:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think it's a film, Jim... the one playing inside JarrahTree's head. And I should know... I had to dash out during intermission to get more popcorn! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

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

Inside Amy Schumer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Compliment

New Girl (season 1) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ex-wife

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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

List of The Ricky Gervais Show (TV series) episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Blind, Space travel and Feasibility

New Girl (season 1) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Choke, Cameo and Heartbroken

List of Three's Company episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Blind and Dismissal

Ja'mie: Private School Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Boarder

List of Mind Your Language episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Misunderstanding

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit

Hi. I removed your addition of the song to the category "Songs about sexuality", because it's not supported in the prose. That might seem obvious to some, but it's best to be safe and stick to categories based on sourced information. Thanks. Ss112 16:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do this again...

You've been around here long enough to know the rules. The discussion at Talk:Involuntary celibacy is over the line. Let's keep our discussions tactful and on point, the comments you've made there lately have run afoul of many policies at Wikipedia. Let's keep the discussion about improving the article text with reliable sources, and not your general opinions women and sexuality. It has no place on the talk page.--Jayron32 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologise, although I don't see what the BLP vio you refer to could be. Jim Michael (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

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

Bridget & Eamon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blue movie

Derry Girls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anonymous

List of Peep Show episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Unfaithful

Peep Show (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canal boat

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Some history

The original article regarding the sociological condition is stored here. This focuses on the historic subject with sources dating to 1916 with Henry G. Spooner's The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. The initial nomination was due to failing WP:MEDRS, however two additional sources from PubMed have been found, but completely unnecessary. This and [this. Both these sources shows that only a small percentage of people who are involuntary celibate identify with the subculture incel. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - that's one of the things that I've been trying to say on the article. However, most of the editors there want the article to be restricted to the incel community/subculture. Some say that being an incel requires being part of the community/subculture. Some claim/imply that most/all incels are misogynists. The article should state that only a small proportion of incels are part of the community/subculture, and that black-pillers are a tiny minority of the community/subculture.

Another important aspect of incels is their high suicide rate, but attempts by other editors and me to include it have been reverted.

As it stands, the article misleads the readers into thinking that being involuntarily celibate involves being in a subculture and being a violent misogynist - yet most incels are none of those things. Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Strictly Come Dancing winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Strictly Come Dancing winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. --woodensuperman 08:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:English actors by location of origin has been nominated for discussion

Category:English actors by location of origin, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. SFB 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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

List of George and Mildred episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lodger

List of The Inbetweeners characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ghost train

List of The Inbetweeners episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Redundancy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I take the city tag as literal

Margaret River despite what they say it is is not one - JarrahTree 08:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that MR is a city. The banner explicitly states that the project covers all settlements, not just cities. The project should change its name to Settlements. Jim Michael (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You have point JarrahTree 09:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

A Night Out in London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Compensation

Kiss Me First (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Online gaming

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

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

Derek (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to The Wizard of Oz and Caretaker

Drifters (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ukrainian

List of Beavis and Butt-Head episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dork

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

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

Catastrophe (2015 TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horny

List of Beavis and Butt-Head episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Picket

List of Rising Damp episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Prowler

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Housekeeper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

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

List of Mind Your Language episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canteen

New Girl (season 1) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Misunderstanding

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Suicide in films has been nominated for discussion

Category:Suicide in films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)