Open main menu

User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1, from 2010 to June 2013.

User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 2, up to June 2018.

Contents

Edit summaries et alEdit

Hi Jim. I see you're a prolific editor, and collaborate pretty well with people - both admirable traits. I hope you won't be offended if I offer 2 suggestions of further improving your WP work?

Firstly, I see you do the occasional Edit summary; but the guideline is for ESs on all edits (incl. Talk pages actually). Secondly, there are currently about >130 sections in this talk page. Might it be time for another archive?

Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The large majority of my edits are self-explanatory, obvious & not controversial. I typically only leave a summary when there could be a misunderstanding or where there's a dispute.
Yes, but I don't know how to archive. Jim Michael (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
We would all be grateful if you would always leave an edit summary. It is so helpful. (Thank you for your fine edits. You are very appreciated around here.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jim.

Well, re archiving, I can do that for you if you like (just as User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1 was done I guess).

Re ESs, I fully accept that the large majority of your edits are self-explanatory, obvious & non-controversial. The trouble is though that, without a brief ES, other editors don't know the nature of an edit until they've gone to the trouble of reviewing it, which adds time & effort; hence the ES guidelines of ESs on all edits.

For a helpful list of some commonly used ES abbreviations, please see this list.

And one other aspect is that: the smaller the edits (say adding or removing one character), the more it leaves a hallmark similar to vandals (though I know now you're clearly not) - and such people hardly ever leave ESs.

Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get a reply, there, although I see you've made several edits.
I've taken the liberty of creating your 2nd Archive,
to make the latest topics easier for you and other editors to access. Hope you approve.
Trafford09 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for archiving my talk page. I couldn't remember how the only other archiving of my talk page - 5 y ago - was done. Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The archiving was my pleasure. I think editors should make life easier for others.

On that note, I do hope you took a look at the ES abbreviations - this list? Trafford09 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit


Disambiguation link notification for July 23Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of My Family episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divorce in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of One Foot in the Grave episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allotment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28Edit

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

List of 2point4 children episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Punk
Weird Science (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vendetta

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:American LGBT drama television series has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:American LGBT 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You Me HerEdit

I just reverted an edit you made to You Me Her -- it looks like these titles are not censored by the makers of the show, so they shouldn't be censored on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from the article's history, the edit you mention wasn't done by me, it was done by an IP who edited the article after me. Jim Michael (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19Edit

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

List of One Foot in the Grave episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Magic
List of Peep Show episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hackney
Off the Hook (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Harrow
Xmas Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Itinerary

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Offence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firebomb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 5Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19Edit

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

Witless (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Tudor and Sleuth
Toast of London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ladies' man

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lists of American crime drama television series episodes has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Lists of American crime drama television series episodes, 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. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huddersfield child sex abuse ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ringleader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6Edit

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 Divorce in the United Kingdom
List of Broad City episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to ATM

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Torture in films has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Torture 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) 14:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Jim Michael. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spoof (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Diffusing Category:1960s comedy filmsEdit

In December 2016 [1], you added {{category diffuse}} to Category:1960s comedy films. I don't see how or why that category should be broken in to smaller categories. Was there any rationale other than the size of the category (>1000 pages)? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That's one reason. The other is that this cat has several subcats; many of the articles within it should be moved to one or more of the subcats rather than being in the large parent cat. Jim Michael (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tallahassee shootingEdit

 On 9 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tallahassee shooting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the perpetrator of the 2018 Tallahassee shooting identified with the involuntary celibate community and denounced interracial dating? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tallahassee shooting), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Office comedy television series has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Office comedy television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 03:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hanns-Martin SchleyerEdit

The lead for Serial killers lists them, mass murders and spree killers. I wouldn't think that four victims of a one off terrorist attack belong in any of those groups and four is a bit small to class as mass, anyway. Britmax (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Four people killed in the initial attack is sufficient for it to be classed as mass murder, regardless of whether or not it's terrorism and/or a one-off. In any case, it wasn't a one-off, it was part of a Red Army Faction terror campaign lasting years. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, not to me. Let's see what others think. Britmax (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
If you disagree that 4 murdered in one incident is enough for a killing to be classed as mass murder, the place to discuss that is Talk:Mass murder. Jim Michael (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Crimes in Europe by decade has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Crimes in Europe by decade, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal GreetingsEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Jim Michael, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for December 27Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

inadvertent revertEdit

Sorry, that was inadvertent. I don't even know how I did that. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Torrance bowling alley shootingEdit

 

The article Torrance bowling alley shooting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of WP:notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. noq (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry!Edit

I didn't mean to remove the "mass shootings in California" category from Torrance bowling alley shooting; I was actually trying to re-add it after the anonymous editor removed it. My apologies! Jmertel23 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Torrance bowling alley shooting for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Torrance bowling alley 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/Torrance bowling alley shooting 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. ansh666 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Koszalin escape room fire for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koszalin escape room 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/Koszalin escape room 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. ansh666 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Underpopulated categoriesEdit

FYI, the {{underpopulated category}} template will be deleted shortly per the consensus determined in this discussion. A bot is being created to remove all 15,000+ transclusions so adding them to categories is no longer necessary. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

NavigationEdit

Jim, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for working on year categories, you seem to keep forgetting to add navigation templates. See Template:Year by category. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't forget; I've never added those to categories because I don't know what to include on each cat and because I'm not aware of whether or not they're policy. I thought they were optional because most year-based cats I've encountered (even if you exclude those I've created) don't have them. A problem I've noticed with many of them is that they cause cats to be present which shouldn't be, in some cases because one of the cats present is a subcat of another. Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 Paris explosion for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Paris explosion 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/2019 Paris explosion 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. lovkal (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

AfricaEdit

You recentrly created category Category:Rape in Africa, but left it mostly empty. We already had categories about rapes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Libya, Nigeria, and South Africa, so I added them as subcategories. You might want to check whether we have relevant articles for the other countries of the continent. Dimadick (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I'd intended to populate it with those subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babes in the Wood murders (Wild Park), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Decades in the City of Westminster has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Decades in the City of Westminster, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Dhaka fireEdit

Thanks for this, and sorry for my bad edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Cancún nightclub shooting for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cancún nightclub 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/Cancún nightclub shooting 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. Bradv🍁 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Glad to see you actively starting articles again. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but you can see that 4 of the articles which I started this year have been put to AfD: Torrance bowling alley shooting (deleted), Koszalin escape room fire (merged), 2019 Paris explosion (kept) & Cancún nightclub shooting (in discussion). Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did see. I try to be very careful about which current events I start articles on. Sometimes (2017 Halamish stabbing attack, 2018 Liège attack,) I know the instant I hear the news bulletin that a good article can be built. More often, I wait i=until I actually find INDEPTH, GEOSCOPE coverage. I know what it is like to have articles deleted, I write articles on topics that some editors WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But please don't be discouraged. You might try writing some articles in your sandbox, just to be sure that when the page goes up, the sourcing is already there to keep it up. But please do keep wriiting articles on notable EVENTS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename a categoryEdit

C:Liverpool murder cases should be deleted & replaced by 2 cats: C:People murdered in Liverpool, which should be a subcat of Category:Murder in Liverpool. That's how it's done with Category:People murdered in London, which is a subcat of Category:Murder in London; Category:People murdered in Paris, which is a subcat of Category:Murder in Paris etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Salamanca nightclub shooting for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salamanca nightclub 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/Salamanca nightclub shooting 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. Hiwilms (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Serial killersEdit

Hi, I notice that you continually have to explain that the serial killer task force includes mass murderers. Why don't you try to have the project name changed to something like " serial and mass killer task force" to resolve this once and for all? Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be a good idea, but I can't work out an accurate concise title. The project also covers spree killing. Jim Michael (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Ministry of Multikills? We disciples could call it MoM. Not to be confused with our actual mothers, of course, just alluding to the classic tattoo on a stereotypical bad dude's arm. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, June 23, 2019 (UTC)

Salamanca nightclub shootingEdit

Hello, thanks for creating Salamanca nightclub shooting. I saw the article was nominated for deletion and passed the discussion. I wasn't able to get to it on time, but I have to say the article is notable (unlike other stubs you've created). It would be good to keep an eye on this event since it is part of a tit-for-tat between Jalisco New Generation Cartel gunmen and a local oil thief gang. Please reach out if you have any questions. Cheers, MX () 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete other editor's postsEdit

Please don't delete other editor's posts on AfD, whether in error or not. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise that I'd done so, and didn't intend to. That must have been caused by an error in the site or the program which operates it. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Utrecht shooting, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. B dash (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that some malfunction caused 2 comments to be deleted when I added mine. I don't know how that happened. I only intended to add my comment, not delete anyone else's. The accidentally deleted comments have been rightfully reinstated. Jim Michael (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WhenEdit

adding 'history' to items that relate to date and crime categories - is that something you acquired from a precedent somewhere, or are you doing it of your own bat? it would be useful to know... JarrahTree 05:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean adding the history parameter on project banners on talk pages of cats about a particular month/year/decade and exchanging a country/continent banner for a specific history banner of that country/continent? If so, then it's clear that it's relevant. For example, cats about crime in particular years & decades in Australia are certainly of interest to the Australian crime & Australian history projects. Likewise, cats about crimes in particular years/decades in Brazil, Canada & India are of interest to their countries' history projects. In the cases of exchanging the US Project for the US History Project; the Europe Project for the European History Project & the Philippines Project for the Philippine History Project, it makes more sense to use a more specific project banner. I'm not the first WP editor to make these improvements on talk pages of cats; I copied the common sense approach from other editors in that regard. Jim Michael (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well common sense and relevance place your idea on it - thanks for the reply. I disagree but will not touch any of your edits or in any way hinder your approach seeing you have gone to the trouble to explain. The major problem is that there are not any specific guidelines as to why or how some projects are added, and some editors show nothing in any way that might be considered to be anything that could be even considered common sense, but then that is relative. It is I have been trying to keep up with the updating murder and crime in oceania - and knowing the relative weakness of participation in the australian history sub project for instance - to add a tag for that is like adding the 'culture' tag - fairly pointless. Thanks again, I suspect no one will ever ever resolve project tagging and related issues - it seems an untethered and misundestood area JarrahTree 05:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearer guidelines in regard to inclusion criteria would be helpful for many projects, task forces etc. I can't see how a cat about crimes in a particular year in Australia could be outside the scope of both the Australian crime & Australian history projects, as those cats are specifically about both of those things. Jim Michael (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah if it was real life and the coffee/beer/tea therein lies a complicated tale of issues re project tagging over the last ten years - thank you for your replies - and appreciate the effort - as to why and how things fit - I have said all I can on wiki - cheers JarrahTree 06:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes on British Crime - JarrahTree 04:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It took me a long time to find all the appropriate projects. It's surprising that there's a British crime project, but no American crime project. There's a European history project, but no Asian history project. Jim Michael (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That's it - there is no consistency with it all JarrahTree 06:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of February 2019 Paris fireEdit

 

The article February 2019 Paris fire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

stub article about a fire in a flat, as many other occour in the world. A very sad event, but not enough to be in a encyclopedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Wind of freedom (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge categoryEdit

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:2016 murders in Turkey. Hugo999 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to upmerge category "March 2016 Istanbul bombing"Edit

Nomination of 2019 Paris explosion for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Paris explosion 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/2019 Paris explosion (2nd nomination) 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have created some more missing persons in countries categoriesEdit

Hi, I see that you have created talk pages and added images to some categories that I have created. I am impressed with what you have done. Are you able you able to create more images and and on to some talk pages that I have created. I would really like it if you would as you are very good at it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't created images; do you mean project banners that I've put on talk pages? Jim Michael (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warren (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (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) 12:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Minatitlán shootingEdit

Thought you might be interested in taking at look at the Minatitlán shooting, which happened over the weekend. Reminds me a lot of the Salamanca nightclub shooting article you made. Both involve Mexico's notorious Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Cheers, MX () 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 Exeter killings for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Exeter killings 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/2019 Exeter killings 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. ♠PMC(talk) 05:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Sinéad O'Connor has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Sinéad O'Connor, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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 11:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

One-revert rule at The TroublesEdit

  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to The Troubles.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be aware that The Troubles comes under WP:1RR (one-revert rule), i.e. only one revert is allowed in any 24-hour period. Scolaire (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I performed 3 edits to The Troubles, of which only the latter was a revert. The other 2 added new info. Hence I did not break any rule. I have no problem with the 1RR rule on Trouble-related articles, and have taken the disagreement to Talk:The Troubles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Adding new info does not mean that the previous user's edit is not undone, so yes, your second and third edits were reverts. You may need to know that in the future, but I'm glad that you have chosen to use the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't intend to break any rule, and didn't realise that my second edit would be regarded as a revert. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
That's okay. It's the only reason I sent you the notice, so that you would be aware in future. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cup of TeaEdit

Regarding your puzzlement over my bizarre informational desires and motives, I'll remind you I already told you. Knowing who died enhances a story about people dying, for me, while I'm actively reading it. Self-contained use, important only to that sole relevant story and preferably accessible from within it, rather than in a new browser tab.

But I kind of see it your way, too. Should I meet someone in the real world who mistakenly or falsely claims someone else died in that shooting we've all heard about, I could interrupt with an "Actually...". But, in my own personal experience, correcting people makes them angry, not enlightened or thankful. Best used only when warranted and expected, like while already arguing with fellow know-it-alls over that specific subject online. Not at parties or around water coolers. Just my opinion, though, feel free to continue being yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

I feel sure that you're in a very small minority in wanting to know (even for a short period) the names of people whom you'd previously never heard of who were killed in mass shootings. The chance of someone mentioning to you or me any of those names (or claiming that someone was among those killed who actually wasn't) is minuscule.
Many media sources love to give many details of people who've been murdered, so that they can sensationalise the story. They often emphasise that some victims were young, or that they recently married/graduated from university/overcame a serious illness or injury/bought a house/started a new job/were promoted, were the sole carer of an chronically ill/disabled/elderly relative or have young children. They do that to emotionally emphasise how tragic their deaths were - which is something that we shouldn't do. One editor in the discussion has stated that he not only wants to include the names of those killed in the Virginia Beach shooting - but also their ages, job titles & how long they'd been working there. I oppose that even more than adding their names only.
Famous people are a different matter in regard to knowing who has died. Each of the several people whom I corrected in 2014 to inform them that it was Philip Seymour Hoffman who'd died rather than Dustin Hoffman - whom they'd wrongly assumed had died from the stupidly vague headline Actor Hoffman dies - were pleased that I'd corrected them. I did it in a neutral way - I didn't talk down to them. There have been several other instances in which I've corrected someone who'd wrongly assumed that a particular celebrity had died recently because they mixed up that person's name with another celeb who was alive & had a similar name. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree that human interest stories take it too far (by Wikipedia standards). But basic identification isn't sensational or from a feature writer. It's dry police procedure (after diligently notifying next of kin), merely reflected by hard news reporters who attend the standard press conferences to complete their factual reports.
If only a minority gave a shit for plain facts (name, age, hometown), how would you explain the existence of this routine dissemination process that became familiar before we were born? Why would every outlet print news that only interests the fringes? Why do so many RfC participants claim this is basically useful for this article if it really isn't?
Take a temporary step outside yourself and just ponder objectively for a moment. I think you'll come around, but wouldn't bet on you admitting it. No shame in either decision. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

Why capitalize and Wikilink my header? Not offended. Just perplexed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

Now that we're old friends in our cups and understanding each other better, I think it may interest you to know the source used to remind readers that a sad man in his 40s used to be a little boy at Newport News High School, 22 years before it stopped mattering, is USA Today. Between you and me, does that teach us anything useful? What about The Daily Beast painting him as a brave young fighting man or woman, 17 long years ago? Do you have any idea what MSA P.C. has to do with criminal profiling or engineering, or is it mere fluff from The Washington Post? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Wikipedia's presumed double standards of care (in conjuction with Urban One), I can now never forget that exactly one hundred years after the Edison Electric Light Company illuminated a nation, old Mrs. Craddock cast forth a terrible shadow baby. Foreshadow baby, anyway. Is foreshadowing character development? Do you want to throw eggs at her spooky house later? I don't, but some might. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, June 25, 2019 (UTC)
It's common for media sources to include info that only interests a minority of its readers. the large majority of people who read a newspaper will only read a minority of it. Likewise people who read online news sites.
The media frequently sensationalise stories, making them more emotive. In regard to fatal events, they often give details about their personal lives, such as that they recently bought a house/married/became engaged/started a new job or that they were the sole carer of a disabled/chronically ill/elderly family member or have (young) children, or were about to retire.
The number of editors wanting too include the names of those killed in mass death events puzzles me, but I've noticed that most of those cases are articles about mass shootings which took place in the US. Very few editors want to include the names of those killed on our articles about earthquakes in Chile, building collapses in Bangladesh, bus crashes in Portugal or car bombings in Lebanon. Perhaps it's because the US media often give the names & other info about the victims, so it's seen by many readers as usual to include such details. However, we're an encyclopedia, which should have different standards & should stick to what is relevant to the event - rather than the lives of those who were unfortunate enough to be killed.
I altered the heading for the benefit of readers of this who may not be familiar with the idiom Cup of Tea, which it links to. Cup of tea is a redirect to Tea. It would puzzle some of them if they weren't familiar with the idiom & couldn't work out what this discussion has to do with tea.
Some bad people used to be good, so I understand why many media sources point out that in some cases, people who have committed serious violent crimes used to be good students, good workers, or people who loved their families & friends.
I don't know what MSA PC is. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody knows what MSA PC is, but it's deleted now, so forget it.
The article and sources don't say whether Craddock was good or bad in his ordinary life, just that he had one until he became unfortunate enough to be killed. Same for the other twelve dead from our lead. Maybe I'm dense, but still don't see how you think detailed backstory is appropriate for one, while the basics about the majority aren't, despite both being included by the same publications in covering the same topic.
Also don't know why you bring up tearjerking sensationalism again. We already agree that's no good here. Nothing sappy about names and ages, though. Even job titles merely explain why they were at the scene of the crime. Two entirely different sets of info, public and private.
You're right about Wikipedia tending to reflect only what pertinent info multiple secondary sources give us. That's a feature, not a bug. Stops editors from making it up.
And yeah, few folks read a whole paper. But the same audience that reads the crime beat reads Wikipedia's crime articles, more or less. If they do it for one-stop summaries of what most crime reporters reported, and all mainstream coverage includes all 13 dead people's identities, seems natural to include the same. If you don't care, just skip that part, exactly like you would and do in a physical paper. I skip the Reactions sections of mass death events in a second, rather than arguing for weeks that other people who don't shouldn't be able to choose, and I'm happier that way. As a fellow man, not your current opponent, I highly suggest it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
I haven't read much about Craddock and I've read nothing about his victims; I was giving common examples of things which are often stated by the media.
There are reasons that mass killers receive more detailed media coverage than victims. The killer chose to give up his privacy, whereas the victims didn't. Studying killers is a major part of criminology, sociology etc. Mass killers tend to be more interesting than their victims. The killer is usually the centre of these events (in a fictional work about such an event, he'd be the protagonist), whereas the victims are in most cases ordinary people, each of whom is one of many who were unfortunate enough to be victims.
As I've said on Talk:Virginia Beach shooting, we should have a higher bar for inclusion than the media. We should be selective about what we state from media sources, rather than including everything that they do. Although we have some of the same readership, our readers rightly expect our articles to be significantly different to those covering the same subjects in the media. If the media specified the angle of bullets & how many hit the victims, we wouldn't include that. (I realise that we should in rare cases when it's important to do so, such as on assassination of John F. Kennedy, but not on articles about ordinary mass shooting events). Jim Michael (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, the killer certainly is more important to the event in having created it. When he's headed to trial like Nicolas Cruz or James Holmes, he needs the bigger room for that story to develop, while the dead simply stay as they were (in a public hometown cemetery, under a rock that displays their names and ages). When buddy actively seeks an audience like Omar Mateen or Brendon Tarrant, we can learn from their messages why innocent victims die and how (perhaps) to prevent similar terrorism. But Craddock didn't grab a soapbox and wasn't charged with any crime. Just some ordinary guy who went to his ordinary job and killed his ordinary coworkers before being buried in an ordinary local cemetery under an ordinary stone, like dozens before. When the average man is pissed enough to kill and die, he's typically thinking about the problems that led him there, not tomorrow's headlines or tomorrow at all. In this case, death and prior obscurity are the great equalizers. All characters warrant basic immediate backstory only. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
Craddock received less media coverage than Cruz, Holmes & Tarrant, because - unlike them - he can't stand trial. Mateen & Tarrant also had ideological motives, whereas there's no evidence that Craddock did.
Many mass killers seek notoriety, but there's no evidence that Craddock did. However, he'd have been well aware that mass killings receive a lot of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
As is everybody, since Columbine. It's just not going to be on most people's minds when they're busy with a relatively important matter of life and death. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
Many mass killers plan it well in advance, so they would be well aware of it. The media & public reaction very likely would be on the minds of mass killers as they plan it. Jim Michael (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


You should probably tell Bus stop you aren't familiar with the subject matter you've been strenuously arguing about. It's hard to tell in text, but I think he almost snapped once or twice at your insistence on keeping it general. He deserves an explanation, I think. Even I'm a bit shocked and disappointed. From now on, either take five minutes to review a topic or be upfront about your willful ignorance before dragging it out this far. That's my advice, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with the mass shooting in question. Not having read details about the ordinary people who were victims doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. I never said that I had read about the victims, and I've made it clear on the article's talk page as well as here that I haven't. Like the vast majority of people, I have no interest in knowing about the lives of people who were killed together randomly in a mass killing. For you to say that you're shocked & disappointed that I don't know about the lives of the victims is bizarre, considering the fact that I have said on many occasions that those details are irrelevant to the shooting. You thought I'd read about what I've repeatedly said is not of relevance?! I've mentioned the fact that a similar discussion has taken place on the talk pages of many mass shootings (but rarely on talk pages of articles about other types of mass killings, because far fewer people want to add them to articles about earthquakes, building collapses, coach crashes & bombings) in an effort to gain a consensus on the matter in general, rather than repeating the discussion on many more talk pages in the future. I haven't misled anyone. Not knowing about the lives of ordinary people killed together randomly doesn't make me ignorant, nor does it discredit me. You don't know the angles & number of bullets (which is much more relevant to the shooting than the victims' lives) - does that make you ignorant about the shooting? I haven't dragged anything out - I joined a discussion that was already well underway with several participants. It would have continued without me. Jim Michael (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You're not familiar with a mass shooting if you know nothing of its victims. By attempting to remove something you know nothing about, you're discredited in my books. Sorry I ever took you seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
Completely untrue. Your attempt to discredit me by claiming that not knowing about the lives of the people who were shot randomly makes me ignorant about the shooting is ridiculous. I never claimed to know anything about them & repeatedly made it crystal clear that the names, ages, job titles & personal lives of them are irrelevant. I don't spend time reading about things that are obviously irrelevant. If the article in question were Victims of the Virginia Beach shooting, you'd have a good point - but no such article will ever exist. There's no possibility that finding out the names, ages, job titles, relationship statuses etc. of the victims could be of any use to me, or make me want to include those details in the article. They were ordinary workers shot at random, not a group of world leaders or a famous rock band. The details of the angles & number of bullets are of far more relevance to the shooting than the lives of the random victims were, yet no-one wants to include that info. How would you respond if someone were to say that you're ignorant of the shooting because you don't know those details about the bullets?
Talking down to me won't get you anywhere. Jim Michael (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't talk to you on my level if you insist on knowing way less than I do about the topic of discussion. So I guess this is goodbye. No hard feelings when we meet again, but I will ask if you know what you're talking about upfront from here on, just to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:23, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
As you know full well, I've been entirely upfront from the start. Your accusations of dishonesty on my part are obviously unjustified. You knowing about the lives of the victims doesn't make you more informed about the mass shooting, nor does it give your comments more weight. You may have enjoyed reading about the victims lives, but it doesn't make you more important or want you want in the article more valid. If you found the info about the lives of the ordinary victims interesting & entertaining, that's bizarre & I'm certain that most people have no interest in knowing. If someone knew about the bullets (which is far more relevant to the shooting), do you think that would that make his/her comments more important than yours, mean that you're ignorant & that your comments on the article's talk page should be disregarded? Jim Michael (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know their lives. I don't want to know them. I don't want you to learn them. I want you to learn their basic post-mortem ID so we can be on the same page about what we're talking about including or excluding. Nothing sensational, nothing random, nothing hypothetical, nothing invasive. Just the definite content you assume is too useless to learn, even though I swear you could really use it to more rationally argue to exclude it. If you want to forget it after, that's fine and easy. But it's common courtesy to not knock something until you've tried it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
I know enough about their identity in order to know that they were ordinary people - staff who were shot in their workplace. I don't need to know any more. Knowing a group of names which would mean nothing to me, along with ages, their relationship statuses & anything else that the media source I'd be reading chooses to include could not possibly be of any use to me. Even if I read that one of the victims had a PhD, bought a house recently or ran a marathon. It also definitely would not change my mind that the names should not be included in our article.
I know what info it is that you & a few others want to include - their names. Bus stop additionally wants to include their ages, job titles & length that they were in their jobs - which no-one has seconded. I don't need to know the names of those ordinary people in order to know whether they should be included. It also would not change my position, or how I'm presenting it.
I read the names of all the people killed in the 7/7 bombings, therefore I have tried reading the sort of info that you want me to. I can remember the names of the 4 suicide bombers, but I can't remember the names of any of the victims - let alone anything else about them. During the almost 14 years since, I've never been able to use any of the info about the victims that I read. I'm not going to read all the names of all the victims of hundreds of other mass death events, simply because you wrongly believe that I should & wrongly claim that I'm ignorant of important facts if I don't. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You lost me at "their identity" and I'm never coming back to this closed-minded teahouse. You and the Hoffmans are all the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you say "Bus stop additionally wants to include". Your concerns are personal. You are raising what are merely personal concerns to the level of that which impacts an article. Wikipedia isn't a creative enterprise. What we do is cobble together articles using material that is on the topic of an article and that is additionally adequately supported by sources. If you were writing for instance a poem or a novel you would have the creative license to omit material that you felt did not contribute to your intended purpose. But a Wikipedia article should err on the side of including a wealth of information. That information should be on-topic and supported by sources. If some of that information is superfluous to some reader's needs—that is a lesser problem in a Wikipedia article than it might be in something of a creative nature. Articles can be polished when finished. But you are attempting to amputate limbs of the article under the guise of polishing the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You alone have mentioned on the talk page that you want the ages, job titles & number of years each was in their job - in addition to the names - added to the article. That would take up a great deal of what is a rather short article. Nowhere on the talk page has anyone seconded your suggestion. You can see that I expressed my opposition to adding the names long before you stated that you want other info about the victims' lives to be included as well. I don't recall having any disagreements with you elsewhere, so you can't honestly claim that I have any prior problem with you.
We don't include something simply because reliable sources do - we're an encyclopedia, which has different inclusion criteria to news articles. We should only include info that's relevant to the shooting. The details that you want to add aren't about the shooting - they're about the indiscriminately shot ordinary people. These issues are much more significant than 'polishing' - they're a substantial part of the article. I'll use your limbs metaphor: the names, ages etc. aren't limbs of the article - they're unnecessary luggage which the limbs would be carrying. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aeroflot Flight 244, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for July 2019 Kabul attackEdit

 On 4 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article July 2019 Kabul attack, 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.

Stephen 00:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Attacks on barsEdit

I have been trying to populate the Category:Attacks on bars in the United Kingdom, which you created. The category is still rather underpopulated, with only 25 articles. I may be overlooking some incidents from The Troubles. Could you take a look on what I am missing? Dimadick (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Loughinisland massacre is the only one I can think of that isn't in that cat. Jim Michael (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2015 Marseille shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turf war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31Edit

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

2015 Qamishli bombings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Checkpoint
Balcombe Street siege (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Standoff

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Original research at List of terrorist incidents in July 2019Edit

We absolutely need solid sources for calling events terrorist. Usually these are going to be government statements. Never headlines. --Doug Weller talk 16:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should be kept at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2019. It's ridiculous that the second half of the month is now missing. Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Automobiles tagsEdit

WikiProject Automobiles's scope is automobiles and their related components, technologies, etc. Just because a terror attack happened to use a car doesn't make its article fall under this scope. The editors of this project would generally not find anything about the article to be within their editing area, so there's no benefit to putting such articles under its banner. It would be akin to placing school articles under WP Buses simply because they operate them. --Sable232 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is the project's scope detailed? In the absence of it being stated, I would have thought that incidents which prominently involve cars would be within its scope. Not all schools operate buses, so that's not a fair comparison. Putting terrorist incidents which prominently involve cars in WP Automobiles is akin to putting articles about school killings in WP Schools - I can't imagine anyone saying that the Columbine High School massacre isn't within the scope of WP Schools. Are you saying that articles about vehicle collisions shouldn't be in WP Automobiles? The 2019 Cairo bombing centred on a 4-car collision. Jim Michael (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting Suspect section expansionEdit

If you're feeling ambitious, there's a line about Hill's felon status in the Response section that would make far more sense cut and pasted to Suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

This Way UpEdit

How do you know what happened in the episode, what source explains it? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I watched it, just like you did - so you know that what I've written is correct. Please allow me to continue completing the description for e2, then you can adjust it based on what you remember from when you recently watched it. I'll link to the show on C4's website, which will be a good ref to prove it. Episode summaries in media sites are in most cases inadequate, which is one of the reasons that readers who want quality descriptions come to WP. Media sites often avoid giving away spoilers, twists & often miss out significant details. Their ep descriptions are often teasers to encourage people to watch, or written in a tabloidish/sensational way, rather than proper descriptions which befit an encyclopedia. I haven't considered that you might not have seen it, because you obviously wouldn't think you knew what should or shouldn't be included when describing episodes you haven't seen. Jim Michael (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jim Michael".