User talk:Jim856796

Archives

/Archive 1

Hi, Jim:

I doubt you remember me, but you helped once or twice in the past with a new article (though I forget which). How are you?

Thank you for your compliments on my Catalinas Norte expansion, and above all, for adding it to our growing collection of Spanish-language, Argentine-related pages on the English Wikipedia. I had meant to do it over a year ago, but you know how it is: time constraints get in the way, and a lot of little ideas end up forgotten (I don't know why I don't write them down). Having to fend off troublemakers in need of a life (and, consequently, with nothing better to do than disrupt us all), as I've been doing for about a week now, certainly doesn't help.

I'll be happy to add pages for some of the more notable buildings in Catalinas Norte. You may notice that I left a red-link for Bouchard Plaza (my favorite), and I don't see why I can't add a few of the others. The Sheraton, for example, was an excellent idea, since the "Hotels in Argentina" category is terribly incomplete. Having said that, I'll admit that my first impulse was to keep most of these as part of the Catalinas page by way of covering them with an umbrella article of sorts, since but for a couple of exceptions, these 30-odd story curtain walled buildings are very ordinary. And there is so much noteworthy architecture in Buenos Aires waiting to be translated from the es wiki.

A good place to start looking, if you're curious about Buenos Aires architecture or would like to add to the English-language list thereof, is in the Spanish-language counterpart to the Buildings and structures in Buenos Aires cat. The city can't hold a candle to London, Paris, or New York, but there are certainly a lot of unnoticed gems. A friend of mine from elsewhere in Latin America once told me, after visiting, that it felt like touring an outdoor museum (well, on a quiet summer Sunday, and sans the billboards).

Again, Jim, thanks for your note. Let me know what you think.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I am retiring from Wikipedia effective this weekend. This is not to policy, other users, or Wikipedia itself. My priorities have changed in the fact I am engaged to be married later this year along with a job-related exam this October.

I wish to thank you for working with me on various issues in Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not respond to you sooner on this, but I plan on being done with this either today or tomorrow. Thank you for asking. Chris (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review started. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's a question waiting. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, I added the description of some events in the article (here). Could you please check for my English? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum : Needless to say I added also references :-)

Hi. I intend to incorporate the Liberty Place article by merging One and Two Liberty Place articles into Liberty Place. It is not ready yet though. There is still some missing information that I will hopefully get done soon. Then I'll get the information on the "live" article. Medvedenko (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jim. Another reason for using serial commas is that they eliminate confusion. Take the sentence "The government must provide roads, airports, hospitals and harbors." Courts have held that in construing the meaning of that sentence, the final phrase "hospitals and harbors" is a single term. In order to avoid such construction, a serial comma is used to clearly indicate that the two terms are distinct. I did not use serial commas for years because I believed they are unnecessary. But I started using them, convinced by the legal reasoning about clarity. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My hero. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you wrote on her talk page that she was born in 1954 and later agreed with another editor that she was actually born in 1966. One of the many things that makes wikipedia unreliable is that rarely do people use sources like articles or interviews as sources, instead they use their own imagination. In every interview from newspaper articles to Rob Paulsen's Talkin Toons' podcast Candi Milo said that her birthdate is 9 January 1961. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still in need of serious cleanup. I took a bit of a crack at it but the cracks are deeper than my copy-edit caulk's ability. Are you still up to fixing it?Anon423 (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't remember us making any kind of deal... But well, I'm translating other articles right now, so this one will have to wait a little. In the meantime, why don't you leave a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil, requesting help from more people? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have noticed you making some stylistic changes to articles that do not conform to the WP:MOS. Please review the MOS regarding punctuation inside or outside quotes. In Wikipedia, generally, the punctuation goes outside the end quote, unless it is inside in the source being quoted. Also, many editors do not prefer the serial comma (which is optional), so please do not add it to articles unless the regular editors of the article don't mind. In general, the MOS says ["defer to the style used by the first major contributor" unless a consensus can be reached to the contrary]. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 4:43 pm, 4 August 2011, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

I prefer the serial comma, and recommend it, because if there is a list of three or more items, and the serial/Oxford comma is excluded, then the arrangement will look awkward, and certain parts of articles aren't supposed to look awkward, so the serial comma should not be optional, and because of this, I don't have a choice. If a serial comma is inserted, and it is reverted, then an edit war will start. Also, a period or comma can go outside the end quote except when the quote is a full sentence. Jim856796 (talk) 4:55 pm, 4 August 2011, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

I disagree that it looks awkward. To me it looks cleaner, and the extra comma looks cluttered. If you have started an article, I will not remove the serial comma. If I have started an article, you should not insert it. Do not edit war. -- Ssilvers (talk) 5:01 pm, 4 August 2011, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

We've gone through this before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw this edit of yours: [1]. "Winner" is clearly wrong as can be seen here: [2]. Care to explain? Srezz (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the article, I just changed the word "winner" to "recipient". Is that okay with you, sir? Jim856796 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using sister to refer to related properties is common usage. Why does it have to be gender neutral? This is common English. I suppose you will want to change the Mother Road to something else also. There is no need to change what is correct because of PC or something related. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spumoni (typeface) 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/Spumoni (typeface) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21#Category:Television_series_by_Fox_Television_Studios, but you did not tag the category page. Feel free to start it afresh, following the instructions at WP:CFD. If you find it confusing, please let me know which part is difficult to follow. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1977–78 United States network television schedule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maude. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Governor & J.J., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page To Rome with Love. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim -- I posted this message to the Populous (Company) page a while back. Any chance you might be able to assist?

"Hello, all. I recently joined Populous as an employee and am seeking editors' help in making the company's page stronger per Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems the need for additional citations for verification stems from the article's introduction text. Does this sound right to you all? Thank you in advance for helping out a fellow with an obvious conflict of interest."

Bewarethephog (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of hotels in Rio de Janeiro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTTRAVEL, wikipedia is not a travel guide

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Funkytown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Let's Get Serious. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim856796,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 125 Old Broad Street should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/125 Old Broad Street .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim856796,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Tribunal de Paris! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

Please add your references.

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 prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please respond to the above? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please respond? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, WIkipedia is a collaborative project and WP:Communication is required - can you please respond to my messages? Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 messages and 5 months - again, communication is required. As it is not ready for the mainspace, you won't communicate with me despite extensive attempts, it is not moved to draftspace where you can work on it and submit via WP:AFC. Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim856796 I am writing you to inform you that you recent changes to Major film studio hace been undone. 20th Century Fox will only be banner not a stuido per Disney^[1]. Please dont change this information in the chart. Any future attempts to do so will be considered vandalism.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? The reason I made that change is because the potential for edit warring is what you should be worried about. Jim856796 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Tribunal de Paris, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Wohnpark Alterlaa, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Centro Empresarial Internacional Rio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tribunal de Paris, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Wohnpark Alterlaa, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim856796. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wohnpark Alterlaa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tribunal de Paris, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim856796. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tribunal de Paris".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Drescher's legs were the only attraction of the "Nanny" show. At least for thinking men. And to describe them as long is polite for skirts barely covering the southern hairline. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oalexander: Oh, I apologize. I reverted that "long legs" remark because it was a nonsense edit. Other individuals have longer legs than Fran Drescher's, but said legs don't get mention on their articles. Jim856796 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:STYLEVAR states that "[E]nforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." It's quite telling that you only target the articles I successfully nominate for In the news Recent Deaths (i.e. George Armstrong (ice hockey), Sibusiso Moyo, Shingoose and now Thorburn). No one else's. Yet you don't contribute any content creation to these areas, other than your incessant nitpicking on one or two words (not to mention your misuse of the minor edit button). I'm not saying your apparent obsession and WP:WIKIHOUNDING over the articles I edit reaches the level of Wenger over Mourinho, but it's getting there … —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You add 4 characters and mis-characterize that as a "simplification"? Wow, just wow. I'm not required "to accept such simplification" because it's not approved by consensus (you know, the way decisions on WP are primarily made). Show me an ITN that you've successfully promoted to the Main Page, then we'll talk. Until then, keep up with your obsession over my content creation – it's getting you nowhere. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132:, You have some explaining to do. Why do you insist on using the same "He/she was X" wording every time? I was trying to simplify the wording to make it look less blunt. These reversions tell me that you are trying to assert ownership of those pages.What excuses do you have? If another editor inserted this phrasing, and somebody else changed it to reduce bluntness, the editor who inserted it wouldn't care, but clearly you care. Jim856796 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't simplify by adding words. Your belief that my wording is "blunt" is purely subjective. Most sources use "He/she was X", so I see no problem in doing so too (here's ABC News and The New York Times, two of several recent examples I can provide). Each of the articles that you keep picking on have successfully went through the In The News process. Thus, consensus has established that those articles are at a quality that's good enough to appear on the Main Page. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132:In other words, you must want the wording to look like a direct copy-paste from a major news source. At least you didn't insert the words "years old" at the end of that phrasing. On the Peter Thoburn article, only my first edit there was a simplification. I did ask you to stop reverting several times, but you kept on reverting the simplifications/re-phrasings anyway, thereby putting yourself at risk of a 3RR violation. Lucky for me, I have already asked User:Julietdeltalima for a third opinion regarding this last weekend. Jim856796 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIMITED applies here. So "a direct copy-paste from a major news source" in this case is permissible. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already saw on Saturday that you were talking about me behind my back. Hence why I said you had an apparent obsession with my edits. Yes, lucky for you. Because a third opinion is just that. It cannot overrule consensus that's been established by the community. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Does this guideline/policy mean you're required to use the exact same wording every time? I don't think so. And how dare you use the word "obsession"? If anything's making this an "obsession", it's your continued reversion of any simplifications or re-wordings of any sentence containing the blunt/strict "He was X", and your insistence on continuing to do so. At least my changes didn't alter the meaning of those sentences too much. I don't know why an uninvolved editor would've told you to stop your reversions themselves by now. Jim856796 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"how dare you use the word "obsession" – well, I dared. The same way you dared to target only the articles I successfully nominate to ITNRD since last November. Three months of persistent targeting and nitpicking demonstrates that it is indeed an obsession and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. The policy I cited was used to refute your insidious insinuation that I committed WP:COPYVIO. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Wow, judging by the way you've been acting towards me in the past couple of weeks, it would take a whole lot of begging (whether by myself or some other editor) to get you to stop your reversions. Jim856796 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ventura Corporate Towers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks sources; no indication of notability.

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. Wozal (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Line 4 (Madrid Metro), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centro. 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) 18:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Djamaa el Djazaïr 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. Skitash (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash How am I going to get blocked just for an expansion-translation effort that you're trying to hinder by reverting, especially if I've copied and pasted the same citations that were in the same section that I translated from the French counterpart article? Jim856796 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Third opinion. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. In an edit summary you noted that you, "already in danger of a possible block." Edit warring on a dispute resolution page is not going to make a block less likely, and you as an editor are in control of abstaining from behavior that will result in a block. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I've declined your request for a third opinion as there are already more than two editors involved in the dispute. BoldGnome (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoldGnome: Well, where else can I request a fourth, or successive, opinion? The two editors I'm fighting with are just unhelpful. Jim856796 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my better judgment, the answer to your question is WP:RFC. But I can already tell you that it'll be a waste of everyone's time, including yours. You're better off taking the advice below. BoldGnome (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take that kind of advice. All I want is a decent expansion-translation effort for this article, and it looks like it's becoming too much to ask. Jim856796 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim856796

Detail: You seem to be experienced user you would be already aware of most customs and culture at en Wikipedia. I suggest: Please try to ponder following points.

1) Technically every language Wikipedia community is independent in formulating it's own rules, policies and culture (except save for things like Copy right WP:NPOV un-supported Defamation of BLP etc.) So point in referring rules/ standards/ culture of French. language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia and vice versa is limited.

2) Whatever are the references used on French Wikipedia article take request inputs at WP:RSN for reliability by English Wikipedia community standard.

3) In English Wikipedia culture WP:ONUS is generally on the user who wants to add / retain any content in the article to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the article talk page.

4) I suggest take a little break at least from the specific article for a while. Even presenting references you are interested in WP:RSN for inputs will give you some minimal break.

5) Once through with WP:RSN if still wish you can approach WP:DRN there after WP:RfC, if needed.

Most probably you would be knowing all these things much better than me with your good long experience, Just I wish to help you to help yourself a little. Let's keep the things behind, Wishing you happy editing and cheers! Bookku (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: I do not want to take a break from helping in the expansion-translation effort of the Djamaa el Djazair article. I do not want to calm down. I hate being told to calm down, because I associate that phrase with drugs, and I don't want to take drugs of any kind. I'm just tired of being reverted by unhelpful editors, especially those who aren't willing to understand the situation in that article. I am in real danger of being blocked because of this dispute now, especially if avenues like the Third Opinion page keep drying up. I'm living in fear of getting reverted by M.Bitton and Skandish.

All I want is a user who can realistically translate some sections of the French Djamaa el Djazair article into the English version of the Djamaa el Djazair article. I want such a user to take of this now. Otherwise, I'm not sure what other avenues I can use at this point.Jim856796 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer project. You do not control other editors' workflows or the project timelines, so demanding something happen "now" is not reasonable in this context. Particularly since I don't see consensus on that article's talk page that a translation effort is even desirable in this case. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: How long before I'm left without any outlets to resolve the dispute at Djamaa el Djazair? I'm going to keep on dealing with getting reverted by unhelpful editors who only want to revert translated text before then.Jim856796 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush, and no deadline. Probably a good first step would be to stop referring to others who disagree with you as "unhelpful editors". You may want to re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You're getting reverted because their isn't consensus for the changes you're proposing, which means to need to work with these editors not adversarially against them as described at WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jim856796, I had and would have only and only positive intention to help you as a peer Wikipedian. Ping me any time you would need my help next time. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: On the "Translators Available" page, I found four editors on the "French-to-English" section who have been active this year (although the most recent sub-section that exists in "Active in 2020/1". I've already sent emails to two of them, asking for their help in expanding the Djamaa el Djazair article for it to match its French-language counterpart.Jim856796 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you sent me an email about contributing to something... perhaps it's this French-to-English translation? Please reply here about how I can help and ping me. It is the Djamaa el Djazaïr article? If there is a particular section I can work on, this is probably something I can do. Let me know -- thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 20:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...you've had an account for 18 years and have made thousands of edits. Act like it. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Rather than bothering to ask "How?", I can just say, Forget it, you can just leave me alone if you're not going to be helpful.Jim856796 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sheraton Grand Rio Hotel & Resort, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]