User talk:Jim Michael 2/Archives/2023/June

Welcome!

Hi Jim Michael 2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternate account

You should disclose that Jim Michael is your other account for full disclosure and not be accused of violating policy on having multiple accounts. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I did so on Talk:2022 for over 48 hours before I deleted it, because 2022 is the article I currently edit the most often. It's a successor account rather than alternate. I'm making it clear that it's me by using a very similar name. I stopped using my old account before I created this one, so I've not had multiple active accounts. I stayed logged into my previous account & forgot the log in details. When the laptop I used stopped working, I needed to start a new account using my new laptop. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I can tell it's still really you by the way you hold firm to the exact same "99% of readers" factoid that only a true Jim Michael could possibly claim to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I make it crystal clear it's still me & I opened this account within hours of being unable to use my old one.

It's a clear fact, not a factoid. The victims were ordinary people, not celebrities. The proportion of readers who would've personally known the victims couldn't amount to as much as 1% of the large number of readers of that article, WP readers in general, or the general public. There can't be thousands of people reading it, discovering that people whom they personally know are among the victims. What's most puzzling about the editors who want the victims' names added is that most only want the names added to articles about killings in the US & perhaps Canada. They don't care about what is or isn't in articles about similar events that happened in the rest of the world. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I know. And every time you say that, someone else mentions how these previously unknown people became known to the general public through significant coverage from the same multiple independent sources that tell the world the shooter's name, local business and street names and often lawyer, judge or spokesperson names, but not third-world atrocity victim's names. We've all been through this in so many places that our names are probably recognized by a growing percentage of casual Wikipedia observers. Is that how you want to be remembered, the guy who says nobody cares about victims and those who do are a extremely fringe minority brainwashed by sensationalist tabloid gossip? If so, ignore my repeated attempts to sway you toward a better path. I won't mind. You've certainly done it before and I still think you're mostly cool. Cheers to choices! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The victims haven't become well-known. They're stated by some media orgs, but the vast majority of people who read/hear their names quickly forget them.

Our screennames are recognised by many people who frequently edit WP, but they're a small minority of readers & an even smaller proportion of the population. Those people don't know anything else about us, other than which articles we edit. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I have eight YouTube subscribers! Not sure why, I have no content. And if the system hadn't written that number down, I'd have forgotten it, too. That's the whole point of recording specific information about historic events on the Internet, I figure, A crutch of knowledge, relieving humanity's individual minds of their ancient burdens of memorizing all these facts and figures. In your perfect hypothetical word, those who inevitably forget a part of what happened would be doomed to stay that way forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I also have a few followers on my YT account which I've never uploaded any content to. I guess our followers are interested in the comments we've written.

The victims' names aren't an important part of the event, which is why few people remember them. Knowing them doesn't help readers understand what happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

How many people do you think remember the time of day, exact quotes and spatial coordinates regarding these shootings? Damn few, sir! As long as threre are people like me outnumbering people like you, the dead people in stories about dead people shall remain as easily recollected around here. But more importantly, I learned something today: "Posterity" isn't what I'd long thought it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Time & location are relevant facts. The perpetrator chooses what to do & when, unless they're directed by someone. However, the specific victims in most cases aren't known to him/her, except in cases in which the targets are his/her own family or colleagues. They're usually attacked because they happen to be there at the time. Even if victims are targeted by demographic, they're not usually individually chosen. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, being chosen by a killer who also was obscure before they were killed isn't a factor, only whether they're subsequently identified as the ones who were in fact killed. Even in total accidents with no sentient killer. Anyway, going to bed, nice meeting your new self! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Section headings

Also, please stop changing talk page section headings for discussions you did not start. We leave these alone regardless of any errors they might have. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Many long-term, regular editors improve them if they're wrong, unclear, misleading, too long or not neutral. Also, in many instances a new heading is needed for a new topic, just like I've done here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider this the last time I'll say this. If you change one more title section on any talk page that was not created by you, you will be reported at ANI for disruption. Changing the edits on others or what they post and on talk pages is not appropriate. Read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. And no, not a single one of these reverts were of your "correct edits". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As I've told you, improving section headings on talk pages is good practice. The link in your comment says to change headings when a better one is appropriate, so you berating & threatening me for improving them is wrong. It says: No-one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g. one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.. Contrary to your claim, there's no prohibition on changing them. You're the only editor who frequently reverts my edits. You think that changing a heading to remove a description of an accused person as a killer on Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting is disruption? It's against policy to name an accused as a killer/shooter, even on talk pages. It's certainly correct to change that, yet you've reinstated that major violation of WP policy. You're often uncivil to other editors as well as me, which is also against one of the five pillars. You edit a very high proportion of the articles which I have, very soon after. You often go to articles merely to revert my edits, including my improvements to section headings, without making any comments on talk, nor constructive alterations to those articles. Therefore there's no doubt that you're following me. For example, I changed a misleading, badly-worded section heading on Talk:Manchester Arena bombing, explaining in my edit summary the good reason for making that improvement, yet you reverted it simply because it was a change that I made & you've chosen to make a habit of reverting my edits. It's you, not me, who's being disruptive. I never follow any editor. I don't know why you chose to start following me, but you shouldn't have. If you hadn't started following me, this problem would never have begun. If you stop following me, you won't even see the vast majority of my edits, let alone feel the need to revert them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You're still doing it frequently; looking up my contributions & going to articles frequently after I've edited them merely to revert me, often falsely claiming that no-one but the person who wrote section headings on talk pages is allowed to improve them. I don't know why you claim that, because you sent me a link which says that they should be improved, which contradicts your claim. You're the only person on WP who's harassing & stalking me & what you're doing is unacceptable because it's hostile, counter-productive & against WP rules. I never need to say this to anyone else, because no-one else does this to me. It's you who's in the wrong, not me, so stop doing it. I don't know why you chose to follow me in the first place, nor why you continue doing it frequently when you know you shouldn't. Don't look up my contributions, let alone follow me & revert me. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Page moves

Can you please slow down the page moves? Editors need time to discuss options. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved 2022 Buffalo shooting to Buffalo supermarket shooting because supermarket is a better disambiguator & there were no objections to my suggested move beforehand. I moved 2022 Laguna Woods church shooting back to Laguna Woods church shooting because the year isn't needed & it was moved without discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Best to come to a consensus on an article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Celaya massacre

Count me in as more than zero. Names of victims and suspects would really help. But I can't find a single source identifying any, and that's the problematic difference from other mass shootings; even the Spanish version is stuck with what it knows. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Most countries' media don't intrude into the lives of the victims of mass-casualty incidents. To do that is primarily a Western - especially American - thing.

Articles on mass shootings outside the developed world tend to be short because few editors are interested in them. Celaya massacre has been edited by 7 accounts; its Spanish article only by its creator. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that we editors who are interested in them can't find the names if we tried. Would it surprise you to learn the Kauhajoki school shooting wasn't Hawaiian and the Jokela school shooting did not go down in Missouri? If not, and you're just counting all relatively open and free reporting as "Western media", then yes, those are the countries that will naturally allow current events articles to grow in any source-based Wikipedia. Obviously, editors who only or mainly understand English have tendencies on this one. But I think you should try blaming your Plain Jane colleagues less and the traditional press restrictions in certain places more. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm been aware of those mass shootings in Finland for years. Though next to Russia, Finland is routinely regarded as being in the Western world, which backs my point about the Western media's publication of details of the lives of victims. I disagree with victims' names being included in mass-casualty incidents. I disagree even more with the proposal to include mini-biographies of victims on Robb Elementary School shooting, which if accepted would then spread to many other articles about mass shootings & perhaps other types of mass-casualty incidents. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the victim lists in only 40% of Category:School shootings in Russia are a bit telling. I'll see what I can see in the other three article's sources, maybe flesh them out Western-style. You're right about the tide turning slightly away from exclusive fascination with the killers' ordinary lives, though, acceptance is spreading. I don't expect you to ever agree with the underlying reasons for this trend, of course. But I do hope you one day come to appreciate how the names and tiny bios mean something you can't fathom to way more than 1% of the people here (as proven by the years of RfCs). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Some media orgs, politicians, WP editors are trying to make the coverage of mass shootings victim-focused. Some say that the perpetrators' names shouldn't be stated. However, such articles should be event-focused. Many details of the perps' lives are important to try to understand who they were & why they chose that course of action. Many of their lives are far from ordinary.

How can knowing the irrelevant details of the lives of the victims be of use to readers? Knowing about their hobbies, aspirations & families? RfCs don't prove that many people want mini-bios of the victims, because it's only within the last few days that there's been a push for that. Less than 1% of WP editors participated in the RfCs & other discussions about the inclusion of victims' names, so those don't indicate a high interest in their inclusion, merely the desire by a small number of editors to include them. In previous discussions on talk pages of mass shootings I said that one of the several reasons for my opposition to the inclusion of names was that it would be a slippery slope towards including mini-bios. My concern in that respect was dismissed by people who said I was creating a straw man & that no-one wanted mini-bios, because the only thing being argued for was names & ages. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The devil is in some details. Knowing Payton Gendron spent time in the racist batshit corners of 4chan (AKA 4chan) during the pandemic, sure. That he copied his mass shooting manifesto from another kid's paper, good to know. But wanting to be a civil engineer like mommy and daddy, play games and watch YouTube or wear a hazmat suit to school one day? That's just pointless creepy voyeurism. At least explaining what a 4th grader or her cousin wanted to be if they grew up is relevant to why they went to class at all. Contrary to what you seem to consider popular opinion, not knowing a killer doesn't mean you "randomly" happened across him. Everyone has his or her reasons to be in any place, every time, right or wrong. Anyway, be careful out there! I know Brits aren't likely to shoot each other, but you never know when one'll suddenly flip out and settle it the old-fashioned way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And yes, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, you should suspect a ruse (it's about 50-50). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And no, I'm not just talking about the desires of less than 1% of RfC voters. I'm talking about their eternally true argument that multiple mainstream (and often reputable) sources run multiple features to the effect of "Who were the victims?". That indicates way more than 1% of the people here in the Western news audience are interested; the portion who get their current events from Google tend to easily find the Wikipedia articles, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposed to trivia about anyone being included.

We still don't know why Ramos carried out the shooting. The article gives no indication of why he chose his target, nor if he attended that school when he was a child. Even if he had a grudge against the school or anyone there, it's bizarre that he chose it years after leaving it. My point about randomness is that the specific victims - most or all of them were strangers whom he shot at random. They weren't on a hit list.

The long-term aspirations of the child victims aren't relevant & can't have been the reason they went to that school, nor have determined which class they were in. Kids that age can't choose which subjects to study or which school they attend. They also can't choose to not go.

Many media sources give mini-bios of the victims because they love to sensationalise & maximise their viewership/readership/profits. We don't have the same goals as news sites, nor should we. The people who want to read about the victims have plenty of sources for that. Many people may be interested in the lives of the victims, but fewer than 1% can gain any useful info from knowing about them. If we were to include & prioritise info based on popularity, ITN would have included a lot of frequently updated info about Depp v. Heard.

How do you know I'm British? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Process of elimination. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How can you eliminate me being of every other nationality? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A magician has his secrets. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 07:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Port Harcourt stampede

On 1 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Port Harcourt stampede, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Warren Clinic shooting victims

Jim, I have restored the names of the Warren Clinic victims. As you know, I support the exclusion of names of victims that were chosen at random. In this case, the shooting was targeted. We need to choose our battles, and not block names just for the sake of blocking. I hope you see my point. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with including the victims' names, with the possible exception of the surgeon whom he specifically targeted. The others weren't specifically targeted - they were merely unfortunate to be there at the time. The killer said he was only targeting the surgeon, but would also shoot anyone else in his way. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If you feel strongly then revert me and wait for the inevitable RfC. I just think this case will fall strongly in favour of name inclusion. As I said, pick the battles that can be won. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2020 Mogadishu hotel attack

Hello, Jim Michael 2,

Thank you for creating 2020 Mogadishu hotel attack.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

These kinds of mass murders are a relatively very common occurrence. Normally in our guidelines we point to WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Consider adding references ton this article to demonstrate that it meets our guidelines.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

Could you please add Saint Lucia I even put the source in the 2022 monkeypox outbreak's talk page. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Serhiivka

Please immediately stop move-warring at Serhiivka, Serhiivka settlement hromada, Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi Raion, Odessa Oblast. This is a blockable offence. It is great that you have your own opinion about the naming of the article, but it does not correspond to our policies, not to the existing practive in the editing area. Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When I moved that, I didn't know that there were many other places in Ukraine which have the same name. None of them have articles, so how could I know? The dab page, which you're the only editor of, was created today, after I made those 2 page moves. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When you move a page and get reverted, you should either ask the person who reverted you (in this case, me), or start a talk page discussion. Moving it for the second time is not an option even if you do not have enough information. Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Moving July 2022 United States floods back to 2022 Missouri floods

Hello. I wanted to request you move the July 2022 United States floods back to a previous title of 2022 Missouri floods. The move to 2022 Southeast floods was done by an editor who has not provided a source linking two different floods together. The new article’s title can be mistaken in the ongoing AfD that makes it appear the 2nd flood in question, 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods is a content fork and should be merged, when in reality, the new article was moved by the nominator to say the floods are connected without provided a source. In the AfD, I asked them to provide a source, and one has not been provided yet, so a move back to the original name prior to the AfD would be appreciated. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I considered doing moving it back instead, but a) the article mentions Missouri, Kentucky & Virginia in its ibox, so it seems like its scope stretches beyond Missouri. b) It's ambiguous as to how many separate events this month's US floods are. c) The E Kentucky floods might not be notable enough for their own article; also, they cover West Virginia as well so that article needs renaming or merging into this one. These matters need to be discussed on Talk:July 2022 United States floods. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand, especially part b that this needs to be discussed, but with an AfD being done, it makes it slightly more challenging. Also, part a actually was done by the AfD nominator just a few minutes before that AfD nomination, as a way to “merge” the articles and get the !votes in the AfD. Basically, the whole situation was a cascade effect. I made a statement in the AfD saying that the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods was not a content fork from the July 2022 United States floods since it almost appears to have been done to trick editors into believing it. Minutes before the AfD, that article was only dedicated to floods in Missouri 2 days ago. The nominator still has not responded to a source request, so I am fully in belief they are doing some WP:OR and just aren’t discussing anything. Either way, that you for considering it at least. I do get why you won’t, but hopefully some editor doesn’t fall for the trick and !vote delete as a content fork. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the two floods are completely separate & are coincidentally happening at the same time? If so, that info should be clearly stated in both articles so that readers of the articles & discussions related to them are aware of that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st century in Donetsk Oblast

A tag has been placed on Category:21st century in Donetsk Oblast indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! InvadingInvader (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice (Alsoriano97)

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Carter00000 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mountain B nightclub fire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mountain B nightclub fire 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/Mountain B nightclub fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A loose necktie (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s disasters in Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s disasters in Spain indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s floods in Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s floods in Europe indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Death of Mahsa Amini on the front page news section

Hello. Please consider casting your vote for or against the nomination of Death of Mahsa Amini to feature on the news section on the front page. You can find the nomination here Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Protests_in_Iran_against_Guidance_Patrol. --Ideophagous (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your page moves

I see a number of your recent page moves have been reverted. Please refrain from moving pages by yourself when you believe there's a chance they might be reverted, and first find a consensus for it. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jim Michael 2. Thank you for your work on 2022 Shiraz massacre. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Istanbul bombing

It isn't just the IP editor, however. I would suggest taking a look at this editor. Sarrail (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Randy Voepel, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:DTR - The only cn tag I put on that article isn't an overtag. That info needs a ref there. It being sourced on another article is insufficient. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There are also two sources with the same redundant info in the External Links section of the page. Redundant inline citations are WP:OVERKILL. Kire1975 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Inline citations are usually preferred for biography articles. If they weren't, it'd be commonplace for our biographies to have external links only. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

None of that is on WP:IC, but it does say inline citations are required for "contentious material" and "Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged." See WP:MINREF. Do you really believe the geographic parameters of the district are contentious or likely to be challenged? If so, the citations are right there. Per WP:NEPNAT, the citation needed tag is unneeded. Kire1975 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It also says that IC are needed for any statement that has been challenged, which includes those which a cn tag has been added to. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If it "needs" to be on that page, then 80 inline citations "need" to be added to California State Assembly districts. Kire1975 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kire1975: yes, actually that is a good idea. I support Jim Michael's position here. Don't remove maintenance tags in a dispute until that status can be resolved or the dispute has ended. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited November 2022 Mogadishu attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mogadishu bombings. 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) 06:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Your recent editing history at 2022 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Just reminding you that you might want to tone down the reverting and re-adding of the importance inlines on Walters and Westwood, as how those can be considered violations of 3RR. Pay special attention to the part on where it doesn't matter on what content is being reverted. Thanks, InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that your bar of criteria for inclusion on 2022 is getting too high. It begins to feel exclusionary. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello. I noticed you recently removed content from the 2023 article without a consensus. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the third inauguration of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, there's long been a consensus that inaugurations are domestic & therefore shouldn't be on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

But so are elections. Thank you. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Most general/presidential (but not local, regional etc.) elections are included on main year articles because they're possible changes in countries' governments, which affects their relations with other countries. Inaugurations are domestic ceremonies. Main year articles include national elections but not inaugurations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You say that a lot. Where are you getting your consensus information? Kire1975 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's how main year articles have been for years, for good reasons. Do you see many inaugurations in them? Count how many elections are listed in 2022, then count how many inaugurations are in the same article. Likewise 2021, 2020 etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving Mahas bombings to 2023 Somalia car bombings

Hi, You might want to share your opinion at Talk:Mahas bombings about renaming it to 2023 Somalia car bombings, before it is moved. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution board

I've requested an arbitration regarding the Barbra Walters 2022 article dispute to the dispute resolution board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2022 Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided to concede the dispute. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jim Michael 2. Thank you for your work on Kasindi church bombing. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jim Michael 2. Thank you for your work on Makugwe massacre. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you can write more. Good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from bludgeoning

With respect, you have directly replied to every single person at Talk:2022#RFC_on_the_inclusion_of_Barbara_Walters_in_Deaths_(Result:) who has outright supported inclusion of Walters' death. Several of your comments and replies have been highly repetitive in the discussion, and, as ArbCom Notes, In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. I would kindly ask that you please heed this note of advice and that you please refrain from further bludgeoning. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Brokstedt stabbing

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Brokstedt stabbing. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2023 Brokstedt knife attack. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2023 Brokstedt knife attack. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 deleted 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. rayukk | talk 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding WikiProject Years

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am notifying you because you were mentioned in a post regarding the ongoing dispute relating to WikiProject Years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

2023

Hi, I think you inadvertently put a sentence fragment in the 2023 lede. I reverted it and left notes but wanted to make sure. It seemed like an incomplete edit. PaulRKil (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the year. The 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake is the biggest event of the year other than perhaps the continuing Russo-Ukrainian War, so I'm sure it's important enough. We do so in the leads of some other main year articles. The sentence only need be short & it doesn't need a ref because it's reliably sourced in the February subsection of Events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it, just the placement below the table and how short it was gave the impression it was mistakenly put there. Either way, I think it is appropriate to start constructing a lede anyway. PaulRKil (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You are now subject to a topic ban

Per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic banned from articles about years, broadly construed. If you have any questions about the topic ban, reaching out to myself or another admin for clarification is not a topic ban violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that there was a consensus for this. A substantial proportion of those voting for this want to remove me from the year articles because of disagreements regarding who & what is included.

The disagreements are only in regard to main year articles, so I don't know why I've also been banned from year in topic articles. I've frequently improved many of those without any disagreements.

What is the scope of this ban? Does it include categories, project banners, disambiguation articles, lists, timelines, decade articles, adding links to year articles from non-year articles etc.? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There were no concerns about categorization, nor was it brought up in the discussion, so that is fine. You should not edit articles on decades, centuries, or year in X articles. If an article is "list of X that happened in $year" then you are topic banned from it. If a timeline is "timeline of events in $decade" then you are topic banned. If you have a specific article you're concerned about you can reach out.

The main concerns was your bludgeoning of discussions and support for NPOV around these types of articles. The topic ban is in place to prevent disruption in the topic area, not a few specific articles, which is likely why there was support for a topic ban on "years articles", rather than partial blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the topic ban also applies to discussions about such articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm free to edit articles such as Timeline of London & Timeline of German history? I'm allowed to add links to year articles from non-year articles, such as adding a link to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023 during an edit to an article such as 2023 Peshawar mosque bombing? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Timelines are fine. Do not insert wikilinks to articles you are topic banned from, so no linking to X in year articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been no conflicts regarding my many edits to various year by country/topic articles, and I've very rarely been in discussions on their talk pages and never in disagreements on them. No-one has objected to my editing to any of those, so I'm baffled at a decision to block me from those as well, as none of the concerns/objections have ever related to them. I won't edit them if they're part of the ban, but everyone loses by including them in it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: There were no concerns about categorization, nor was it brought up in the discussion, so that is fine. Just for clarification, WP:TBAN seems to state that related categories are included in a "broadly construed" interpretation. Or are you saying it's clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise (quote from WP:TBAN) in the closed the AN/I discussion ? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise. I don't see it as a risk as it's very unlikely there would be a disagreement on if a death or event that occurred in a year should be categorized in that year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, just didn't want Jim getting caught up in a different interpretation of TBAN if another admin tries to enforce that. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm allowed to continue creating & populating valid categories, including those which have years, decades etc. in their titles? Also, I assume that this topic ban only applies to English Wikipedia. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can create and populate the categories, as long as you're not categorizing articles you're topic banned from. This topic ban only applies on English Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sad

Well, things could be worse, at least you are still here, and I look forward to working with you on other articles in the continued drive to maintain standards and eliminate bias, systemic or otherwise. Deb (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo this. I am sorry things went the way they did, but please remember that indefinite is not infinite. I sincerely hope you'll continue your contributions. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I appeal? Do I need to wait a certain amount of time to do so? Why is the topic ban indefinite? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNBAN. I would urge you to not appeal immediately, as I think that has a low likelihood of success. The best chance is to edit productively elsewhere for a bit and then try. The decision is of course yours, however. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. Wait a while, a good while. Some of the people who worked to get you banned will have gone away, while others will have joined the project. Nothing is permanent here. In the meantime, I can think of at least one other place where your industry would be valued. Deb (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This topic ban is ridiculous. I'm sorry that this has happened and the tactics employed here to get to this position are appalling. That said, you should learn that WP:Bludgeoning is a real issue and it's likely the reason many of the uninvolved editors showed no mercy. In the future say your piece and move on... Nemov (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I too am disappointed that the community opted for a t-ban. My advice? wait about six-months, before seeking getting it lifted. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Regretably, TheScrubby has retired. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope that he will reconsider. We need him! Deb (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been in touch with him and he sends good wishes to all of you but will not reconsider in the near future. Deb (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories on Killing of Brianna Ghey

Hey Jim. Could you please stop changing Category:Deaths by stabbing in England to Category:Stabbing attacks in England? The "Deaths by stabbing in England" category is a subcat of "Stabbing attacks in England", and the "deaths by" cat is more specific. In your most edit summary for the change you stated that it's for the redirect, however the redirect is also currently in that category. Or is there something weird with categories I'm missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Deaths by x cats are for bios. This is an article about a killing, so it should be on the redirect & is. For the same reason 2006 births, 2023 deaths etc. are also on the redirect rather than the article. Likewise other articles such as 2022 Bermondsey stabbing & Glasgow hotel stabbings don't have Deaths by cats on them because they're not bios. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the policy, guideline or consensus where this practice was established please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the "deaths by stabbing in England" category has ten "Murder of...", one "killing of", and one "death of" articles in it. The subcat "deaths by stabbing in London" also has nine "murder of", two "killing of", and two "death of" articles in it. So I'm not sure that this is even general practice. So yeah, could I please have a link to the policy, guideline, or consensus where the practice was established please? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice for Deaths by cats to be for bios & redirects of people's names - whether they be caused by stabbing, cancer or anything else. It makes no sense for a cat to be on an article & its redirect; it should be on one or the other. We put 2006 births on the redirect, not the article. We put 2020s in Cheshire on the article, not the redirect. Likewise we don't put articles about bombings in Deaths by IED cats, but we put articles about people killed by them in those cats. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's common practice, then you should be able to point me to the policy, guideline, or consensus where that practice was established. Can you please do so? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where it might be, but it's been done that way for well over a decade. It's obvious that a redirect & article should never be in the same cat & there's no case for doing so. All the other cats are on the redirect or the article & no-one's disputing them. Death cats are routinely for bios, as are births cats. If they weren't, there'd be death cats on articles about earthquakes, floods, bombings etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if you can't point to the policy, guideline, or consensus where this was established, then I would ask again if you could please stop re-catting this and any other articles in this manner? I'll open a discussion at WT:CAT shortly for guidance, referring to this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WT:CAT looked to be the wrong venue for this discussion. I've opened it now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Use of "Deaths by stabbing" versus "Stabbing attacks in" categories in articles and redirects. Probably best if we continue any discussion on this at that talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

All the other cats are on the redirect or the article. You don't disagree with any of those. Yet you want one cat to be on both the redirect & the article; that one, and only that one; a sole exception. If we put death cats on articles about incidents, they'd be on Chernobyl disaster & 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings. You can't think that no-one's got around to adding them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim I'm trying to understand what the current best practice is in this circumstance. To do that I need to see the relevant policy, guideline, or consensus discussion where that practice is established. You're asserting that it is standard practice, the way things have been done for over a decade. That may be the case, but that assertion alone does nothing to help me understand why that is the standard practice, and how that practice interacts with the WP:CATSPECIFIC guideline which pretty clearly states Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. (emphasis from original text)

As I said at the WT:CATP, to me the most logical category for the article to be in is the "Deaths by stabbing" category, because it is the most specific category to which it logically belongs. You're saying that the standard practice is instead that it should be in the "stabbing attacks" category. I want to understand why that is the standard practice, and to do that I need to see where that consensus was established.

This is no different than citing WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:NPOV in a dispute over content, or linking to a discussion at WP:RSN or entry on WP:RSP when stating whether or not a source is reliable. We do that so that the editors we're in dispute with can understand why content might have been removed, rephrased, or resourced, so that hopefully in the future they will not make the same mistake again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It can't be correct for any cat to be simultaneously on an article & redirect, nor for deaths cats to be on articles about incidents, because death cats are for bios. This is standard & makes sense. A non-applicable cat can't be the most specific. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case, then one of the editors at WT:CATP will be able to direct us both to the consensus where that was established. I can learn why categories are used in this way, and we both can make a note of that consensus location so that if another editor asks either of us this same question at any point in the future, we can say "Sure thing. Here's where that practice was established [link]".

This way everybody wins. Articles get categorised correctly, people learn why we do things the way we do, and we can move on to some other discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Some advice

A key takeaway from the discussion at ANI that lead to your topic ban should be that you may be operating on what you believe is a longstanding consensus, when it's just what you believe consensus to be. You should be more open to others challenging your assertions of consensus, especially when you don't have a discussion or RFC to back it up, and be less hard-line on things when you can't point to where there is an actual established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to yesterday's discussion about categorising, I didn't say there's a consensus.

No-one has given a valid reason for banning me from year by country/topic articles, many of which I've improved without ever being in conflict with anyone regarding them, so it pointlessly makes things worse for WP & its readers as well as me. No-one has said why my topic ban should be indefinite; I expected it to be a fixed period such as a week or month. The large majority of people who wanted me topic-banned aren't editing year articles - main or otherwise. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on the categorization, why would you revert someone without seeking consensus first? Also, the reasoning behind broadly construed topic bans has been explained. Lastly, indefinite is not infinite and you can appeal whenever you'd like. I would caution that continuing the type of behavior that lead to a ban from one topic on a different topic will make it less likely for the community to repeal your existing topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been the case for over a decade & probably since the categories were created that deaths by (location, cause, year etc.) cats are for bio articles & that no cat goes on an article as well as a redirect to it. It's commonplace practice. Thousands of editors categorise that way. I add cats to articles most days & there's no disagreement in regard to the vast majority of them. We don't have deaths by cats on articles about gas leaks, floods, earthquakes, explosions etc. No-one wants the 2023 deaths cat on the article in question; it's only one cat, that one editor wants to add, against long-standing convention. Had I known the reaction would be like this, I wouldn't have made that edit. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one has said how banning me from year by country/topic articles could help anyone, nor why the ban is indefinite. None of the disputes I was involved with related to any of the sub-articles. I edited dozens of them without a single complaint, objection etc. It can't be to prevent disruption, bias, arguments etc. on the sub-articles, because there hasn't been any of that on them. When, where & how would I appeal, and on what basis? Would you oppose it? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You can appeal at WP:AN, and other specifics are covered at WP:UNBAN. You can appeal on the basis that the ban is no longer needed, that the discussion was closed incorrectly, or the ban applied incorrectly. Normally the best route is editing without recurrence of the issues that led to the topic ban in other topics for several months, then going to AN and explaining why you don't believe your editing will be disruptive in that topic area if the ban is lifted. I likely wouldn't offer an opinion on if the ban should be lifted as I closed the initial discussion and logged your topic ban.

I seriously urge you not to do this right now though. There was a strong consensus at the ANI thread to topic ban you a week ago, and as far as I can tell there were no issues with my close. You are currently involved in a discussion along similar lines dealing with categorization and exhibiting some of the same behavior that lead to the topic ban. If you were to go to AN now to appeal the topic ban I don't believe the discussion would end in a way you are happy with. You are allowed to make such an appeal, I'm merely expressing my belief that it isn't a good idea at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

All those three are valid reasons to overturn my topic ban, which shouldn't have been imposed. Punishing WP & its readers as well as me by extending it to a huge number of sub-articles that are unrelated to the dispute is even more unjustified. There wasn't anything like a strong consensus to topic-ban me. Even saying there was a consensus is a stretch. Many people - including some admins - expressed their strong disagreement with it, both beforehand & afterwards. No-one specified that the ban should be indefinite, so there certainly wasn't consensus for that. It's disappointing that most of the people who wanted me banned don't edit the year articles; I thought they'd want to do a better job of improving them than I did.

The brief disagreement with one editor over one wrongly-applied cat on one article is a world away from disagreeing with the insistence by some editors that Barbara Walters is of equal notability to Pelé & Pope Benedict. Had I known that dozens of previously uninvolved people would turn up to back that insistence (which I certainly didn't expect), I wouldn't have disagreed in the first place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said, you can make an appeal at WP:AN. Those are your dice to roll, but I don't think it's a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one specified that the ban should be indefinite, so there certainly wasn't consensus for that. I would very much advise against raising that in any appeal, as it would come across as wikilawyering. Topic bans are assumed to be indefinite unless stated otherwise. Everyone !voting for a topic ban was doing so on the assumption that it would be indefinite.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to roll dice, I want to overturn the ban or at least reduce the ridiculously wide & long scope of it. However, If I contact any of the many people who are opposed to this ban, I'd likely be accused of canvassing, so I don't know how to gain support to overturn it. In addition, the vast majority of those who want the ban will restate their support for it.

Where does it say that topic bans are usually indefinite? I've been here for well over a decade & I didn't know that. It's highly unlikely that I'm the only person who took part in that discussion who was unaware of that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim, with all due respect, I don't think this line of thinking is helpful for you. As I said earlier, indefinite does not mean infinite. I would suggest you simply reframe your thinking to it as a six-month ban, and appeal at the end of that time. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ and I am just one old guy with opinions. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea prior to being reported to ANI that a topic ban was even a possibility. It wasn't until after it was imposed that I found out it was indefinite. I can't understand why anyone would assume that everyone in the discussion - including me - knew that all along. I expected the ban to last a month at most. However long I wait, I still don't know how to gain support without being accused of canvassing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite doesn't mean infinite or forever; this is now the fourth time someone has told you this. Indefinite only means no fixed time period. It lasts until it is successfully appealed. The reason t-bans are usually indefinite is to prevent someone from simply waiting it out and going immediately back to the same behavior. It's not meant as a punishment, it's meant to prevent the continuation of the behavior.

Like others, I recommend you do not try to appeal this now. Your primary goal right now should be to figure out why the behaviors were seen as so disruptive that people agreed you needed to stop editing at that topic. Before you appeal, you need to understand that well enough that you don't exhibit those behaviors anywhere else, and in order to convince people, you'll need to be able to point to an extended period of editing without those behaviors. You're now, btw, arguing with multiple editors about this, and it's starting to look as if you simply don't want to or aren't able to understand what people are telling you. Valereee (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I know what people are telling me & what the objections were, but they haven't answered all the questions I'm asking. I know indefinite doesn't necessarily mean infinite, but in practice it is in most cases. I'm asking how to increase my chances of having this ban overturned, or at least narrowed, but no-one is saying what I should write in my appeal. Many editors have objected to my ban (both before & after it was imposed), but none have said they'll back my appeal. I'm asking why the ban covers a huge number of subarticles, when no-one ever had a problem with my work on those, or discussions relating to them. No-one is telling me the answer to that other than to say that bans are usually broad. Banning me from the subarticles is certainly a punishment to WP & our readers as well as to me. It's proven that I've done a great deal of good work on WP. I'm one of the most prolific editors & am the creator of articles including Murder of Sarah Everard (under its original title), which is one of the most-viewed articles during the 2020s. I also helped to prevent that article being deleted. One of my recent creations, Gualaca bus crash, will likely be put on ITN within days. Without me, the article likely wouldn't exist. That appears to count for little or nothing, or it's viewed as being outweighed by me disagreeing about the notability levels of a few celebrities. It appears that it's being claimed that me asking about this ban & disagreeing about the use of one cat on an article as well as its redirect is similar to me disagreeing about how important a few celebs are, even though they're different matters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We're saying you aren't ready to appeal this and you shouldn't try to write an appeal. We're saying your chances of having this t-ban overturned are so bad that trying to do so now against the advice of multiple well-intentioned editors would represent bad judgement. We're saying you should not be thinking about what to write in your appeal. We're saying that you should instead be trying to understand why the behavior was seen as disruptive and stop doing that behavior for an extended period before even thinking about the appeal.

I understand this feels like punishment. It is not. And basically everything in that wall of text you just wrote starting with "Many editors have objected" is proving that you don't understand what the problem is. I am trying to be kind here, but honestly you are bludgeoning and sealioning right here in a discussion about how you can prove the t-ban for bludgeoning and sealioning at years pages was unjustified.

However, I will try to answer the questions.

1. The fact some editors opposed a t-ban or wish this one was less broad does not mean they think the close was incorrect. They understand that this time, consensus was against them, and that even if they wish it had been closed differently, they understand that not every close is going to be exactly what they hoped for or would have done. If they have your best interests at heart, they are not going to advise you to appeal at this time.
2. Topic bans are awful because they do tend to be interpreted very broadly. That's to prevent simply transferring the problem to other pages. I know it's awful. Everyone knows it's awful. We are limited in the ways we can prevent disruption, and t-bans are a bit of a blunt instrument. Yes, it sucks.
3. No one is saying you aren't productive. Someone can be productive and disruptive at the same time, and yes, it's sad for the project and for readers to have someone who could be a net positive in an area end up being so disruptive that they have to be banned from that area. Everyone hates that.
4. I'm sure it feels like punishment. It's not, and really you should stop saying that because it's a very strong indication that you don't understand at all what this is all about. It's about preventing you from wasting tons of people's time because you want to bludgeon and sealion at years articles and simply won't stop bludgeoning and sealioning anytime anyone doesn't give you the answer you want, even right here in this discussion.
5. People are actually being quite patient with you. They understand this is hard, and that it might take some time for you to come to grips with.

Valereee (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing can be spread or transferred to any of the many year subarticles I used to frequently improve because none of the issues involved exist there or can do. I've edited many of them for years without any disputes. If it's relevant it should go on there, so the inclusion bar is simple.

If I didn't respond to discussions which I'm repeatedly called to, I'd be criticised for ignoring them. If there's a designated number of replies that an editor is limited to, I'm unaware of it.

When editors - including admins - described the ban as ridiculous & that they're horrified by it, they made it clear that they're strongly opposed to it. It's a world away from agreeing with it. The report & ban has made year articles much worse due to Scrubby & I no longer editing them. He wasn't sanctioned, but he was certainly driven away from editing WP by being reported & accused. If the aim of reporting us was to improve year articles, it's backfired badly. It may not have been intended to be a punishment, but that has been a result of it. People who love to add pop culture trivia to them are almost unopposed & many year by country articles are severely incomplete. It's disappointing that most of the people who criticised his & my editing of year articles have no inclination to improve any of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you without reservation: anyone who thinks this t-ban is horrifying or ridiculous is almost certainly reading here. Any one of them could start a section here encouraging you to appeal now, if they thought it was a good idea. Valereee (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gualaca bus crash

On 22 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gualaca bus crash, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm Jonesey95. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Lynching have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee 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/Murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

nableezy - 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There is someone here who is mystifying reality and not letting you write articles objectively. They did it with me and now they do it with you. Some keep saying that the Tel Aviv attack was not deliberate, when it is clearly a terrorist attack. On the Israeli victims they oppose, it is a shameful thing. Best Regards --Peter39c (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2023 Hamra junction shooting

this is the draft they opened which is the same as your article.

Best Regards Peter39c (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Kandahari Bazar bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quetta attack.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Lynching of Nigar Alam

An article that you have been involved in editing—Lynching of Nigar Alam—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Bookku (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've never archived anything. It's complicated & I'm likely to get it wrong if I try to. I don't mind if someone else does so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I try doing it for you? TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you know how to. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Please review WP:OVERLINK please, esp. in regards to WP:Current events. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2023 Messenia migrant boat disaster

On 15 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Messenia migrant boat disaster, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)