Jump to content

Talk:Fort Myers, Florida/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

3rd grade???

The position of third was not "awarded" to her in any way. Please elaborate. ZlatkoT 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

you're right. But "getter" doesn't work. How about, " - placed third" Trevormartin227 15:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
or, just "prominent American Idol contestant" Trevormartin227 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Metro Population

How is it possible for the population of metro Fort Myers to be greater than the population of Lee county?!!

What dates are you comparing? The 2000 census figures are the most accurate, but estimates are released each year. If the articles are using estimates from different years, the number will vary. -- Donald Albury 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure actually - the article on Fort Myers doesn't indicate which source it uses for the figure. Or am I missing something?
As of today both the population in the Lee County article and the population figure for Metro Fort Myers in this article are given as 544,758 on July 1, 2005. -- Donald Albury 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How come the link to DowntownFortMyers.com is not allowed on Wikipedia? I realize that Wikipedia is not a "linking service", but I do believe the link is still valuable to any visitors, especially since it has more information about Fort Myers than ANY of the other 2 site you have listed. The Citys' website has hardly any information, and any information is does have is sorely out of date. And if its wrong to have DowntownFortMyers.com listed because of the banners (which most link to internal company websites also offering information about all of Southwest Florida), the citys' website takes money for their banners. At the very least, they are more of a income based website that ours. Not to mention the link to the Greater Fort Myers Chamber of Commerce, that solely relies on members paying a fee to join, AND another to ADVERTISE on their website. If your going to hold standards, please hold them to everyone.
We offer information about the current events going on in Fort Myers, we offer current news, local bands, and a whole section about the history of Downtown Fort Myers. We're not a government site (yet), but I firmly believe we offer more information about Fort Myers than the sites that your linking to. I'll admit, we are promoting Downtown Fort Myers, but we're promoting the lifestlye, and businesses of downtown WHILE offering more information than the 2 websites that you've deemed indispensible.
I do thank you for keeping the Fort Myers section of Wikipedia up to date, that has to be quite a job, and you've done it magnificently. I know it's a thankless job (unless your getting thanked by the city), and I know it's a lot of work, so I do thank you for making this little corner of Southwest Florida a section of Wikipedia.

Raymond Daugherty 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on external links at Wikipedia:External links. -- Donald Albury 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to further research outside Wikipedia which are accurate, on-topic, in context and functional. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article."

    • From the "Links to be Considered" section, #2:

"A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories." The site conforms to all of these requirments, while The Greater Fort Myers Chamber one does not. The Chamber website is notoriusly out-of-date, and it does nothing, but promote businesses. If your not willing to keep DowntownFortMyers.com listed, I think you should remove the Chambers website as well. Raymond Daugherty 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    • And under the 'Links to be avoided' section it lists "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise businesses. -- Donald Albury 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • AND if you look at the Greater Fort Myers Chamber Website, they offer 16 "banner" advertising positions along both sides, and across the bottom. DowntownFortMyers.com has 11, still far short of the 16, if according to your "rules" the chamber website is still justifiable. I am not trying to "advertise" the Downtown site. I believe it is a good resource for information about downtown. Again, your argument is still flawed. You cannot say that I am not allowed, but someone who is far exceeding the limits of your rules is.

A Small Gift from Wiki Project Miami

Hello, ReignMan here from Wiki project Miami. I'm pleased to give to you a small collection of photos for your article. I was able to snap some pictures of a few Ft. Myers landmarks and even a "skyline" shot, but they are a bit rough. Anyway, this will get you all started in the buisness of multimedia articles. I also added a small amount of clarification on the city info box, and added a description of why Ft. Myers is considered the primary city of the area.

Remember, we on the east coast are your neighbors, and we love to ocasionally get away from it all by coming over there. My parents live in Cape Coral, and I enjoy the ocasional break from the meatgrinder. Say hi to them for me, see "ya'll" at Three Fishermen!

P.S. Has it really been 6 years since the WTC attacks? How time passes! ReignMan 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fort Myers Bones

Should there be eventualy a sepatate article for the FM bones? I think so but i want to make it read good. -munkee_madness talk 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there are a lot more questions than answers on the topic. I'd suggest waiting a little to see what transpires. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Current news stories will not necessarily be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#NEWS for the policy. -- Donald Albury 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
At some point, this story might. There is a distinct chance this was the work of a serial killer. At this point though, as I said, more questions than answers. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose a serial killer would meet notability criteria, but I agree that a story like this really needs to be allowed to settle down. I'm all for waiting until a story is clearer. Hell, I don't start articles about living people, and I've only started one article about someone who had been dead less than 15 years. -- Donald Albury 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Female Athletes

(This section has been moved from my user talk page, as it belongs here.)

What do you have against female athletes? Professional body-building is a sport. Their athletes are as notable as any other sports. Last time you deleted these, I went and found sources that showed where they lived and you left it alone. Now you decided that there own words about where they formerly lived isn't enough. Why would you challenge their own writings about where they used to live? They have no reason to lie about that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Find some some independent reliable published sources establishing their notability. -- Donald Albury 00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because the time hasn't been taken to write an article specifically for wikipedia doesn't negate a persons notability. I am starting to believe that you simply have a bias against female bodybuilders. You claim this is a notability issue. Read WP:Athlete. "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." All three are PROFESSIONALS. They are competitors in the IFBB, which is the main professional organization in the sport of bodybuilding. The IFBB is a member of the International Olympic Committee. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful what you are accusing me of. I have removed those names from the list because there are no independent sources cited to establish their notability. You will notice that all of the other names listed have WP articles, with the one exception of a (female) athlete for whom a citation of a source listing participation in two Olympic games has been provided. How have these female bodybuilders achieved notability? You need to cite independent reliable sources showing that they have done something to achieve notability. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Once anything has been removed from an article for lack of reliable sources, it is your responsibility to provide citations to reliable sources before re-inserting the material. -- Donald Albury 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
First off, I didn't ACCUSE you of anything. I stated my personal BELIEF. Second, you initially claimed there was a lack of notability, telling my to refer to wp:notability. I used that criteria to establish that for athletes, professional status IS notability, per wp:athlete. Now you are having an issue with verification. I think you are being nit-picky, but again, that is my opinion. Why not leave the entries and fact-tag them, which is not an uncommon practice, instead of removing entries that have SOME support and clearly aren't a figment of my imagination? And, FYI, if you bother to look, some of the sources you are discounting aren't from the subjects own website alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This belongs on the article's talk page. -- Donald Albury 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, what I said above was, "Find some some independent reliable published sources establishing their notability." Notability is a guideline. Notability is established by "reliable published sources" per policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. We don't accept personal web pages as reliable sources, except for trivial details. A personal web page might be accepted for non-controversial details in the person's bio. A personal web page is never acceptable for establishing notability. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlike most other professional sports, bodybuilders don't have teams or major mainstream media coverage. Most of their income is generated by product endorsements or winning contests (or modeling for females). Often a bodybuilder will compete in only a couple of contests a year because of the demands of peaking for a contest. That leaves no team websites or sports pages to reference. While they get referenced in magazines of the sport, most of them don't put their issues online. That leaves sites like getbig.com or bodybuilding.com, which do produce their own content. Much of the sport is followed based on websites owned by the athlete themselves, by ones owned by companies that make related products or by fan sites. I think I am providing ample references to show this isn't something I made up. For example, I provided a link to the NPC website (the amateur federation) that shows Dunbar won a major national contest (which would qualify her under wp:athlete alone) and that notes that win made her a professional. I did the same with Schoolcraft, showing the won that made her pro. I feel that you are being over stringent on this, particularly when we are talking about just a mention that they formerly lived here. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

City of Palms classic section

First, it is WAY too long for an article about FM. Second, there are no inline references, instead a reference section showved into the middle of the article, making this article now have 2 reference sections. There are redundant links and the whole thing sounds like it was lifted verbatim from somewhere else. With that much information, I'd be inclined to say it should have its own article and not take up so much space in this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Since nobody seems to care, I moved the info, as is, to create it's own article. This was entirely too much space being devoted to a high school basketball tournament that spent its first 10 years outside the city of Ft. Myers. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarasota Curse?

I just don't think the section is encyclopedic and should be removed. Anyone agree? Disagree? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, I think that there should be a little town superstition. Firio (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've lived here pretty much my whole life (except for 6 years in KY), my mom has lived here more than 3 decades, and neither of us has ever heard of a "Sarasota Curse". VulpineLady (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Crime

Re: statistics...what year and who did the survey? Sources, please.

And what happened to the See Also link on Lords of Chaos? media coverage out the wazoo, at least two books, reference in a movie, and LOC has it's own wiki page but nary a squeek on the page for their stomping ground? (the removal caught my eye as I put the link in in the first place) VulpineLady (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I suspect the source of the crime numbers was the FBI UCR. I didn't make the change but, I'll check it later. I removed the LOC hatnote and explained in the edit summary that since the majority of their activites took place in unincorporated Lee county and not in the city of Ft. Myers (only the fire took place in the city), it was more appropriate for the county article, not the city one. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • didn't see an edit comment, thanks for the quick reply...given that the city was under Marshal Law, the Coke plant was across the street from the only hospital (with a major High School nearby), at least one of the group lived inside city limits, and much of their supplies were purchased inside the city I guess I just though they were a city thing. That and if someone is going looking for them the majority of the references mention the city over the county.

Opening paragraph of LOC page:

The Lords of Chaos was a self-styled teen militia formed on April 13, 1996 in Fort Myers, Florida. They gained notoriety for a crime spree that ended with the April 30, 1996 murder of one of the boys' teachers, Mark Schwebes, who served as Riverdale High School's band director.

I guess it's just me though O_O VulpineLady (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You live here, so you should understand. San Carlos Park has a Fort Myers address, but it far outside the city of Ft. Myers. Riverdale High School, The Hut Restaurant and Mark Schwebes house are all well outside outside of the city. This article is about the city of Ft. Myers, the one with the population of 48,000. If this article was incorporating every place with a Ft. Myers address, like FM Villas, San Carlos Park, Harlem Heights, Pine Manor, Whiskey Creek and a lot of other places, that number would be much higher. Also, the article includes a map showing the city and the city limits. And why was the case worked by the Sheriff's Dept. and not Ft. Myers PD? Because most of it didn't happen in the city. BTW, not to nit-pick, but we weren't under martial law. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

8 PM curfew with cops patrolling the streets to make sure everyone was inside sure felt like martial law (we're under the south CC bridge, so county zone). And Schwebes was in the north-central area of Pine Manor/Park Meadows which was/is right on the city limit line. The parrot murders was worked by FMPD assisting the over-extended LCSD, and they gave support to ATF when Coke blew (which was inside the city and distinctly absent of LCSD)...I distinctly remember seeing FMPD stobes lighting up 41 as I drove to FMHS the morning after (of?). Call it OR of you want, but it leaves a mark.

Granted they ranged over pretty much the whole county, but if so much took place out of FM why are there so few county references in the LOC article? (bed time...will check back at next log in) VulpineLady (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Right, a curfew and increased patrols. Martial law means turning everything over to federal military authority. Pine Manor still isn't in the city to this day. The city doesn't want it. There is no tax base and a load of crime. It would cost them money to annex it. At that time, the city limits stopped near Colonial. Page Field wasn't in the city at that point, let alone anything south of it. The Hut is still in unicorporated Lee County (but it's not called the Hut any more). The Coke plant was in the city and I did say "only the fire took place in the city". I'm pretty familiar with it too.....I'd just started with LCSO that April. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability of residents

There is no policy stating that a person must have a Wikipedia bio to be considered notable. For example, professional athletes and Olympians pass WP:ATHLETE, therefore making them notable. Just because someone hasn't taken the time to write an article about them yet doesn't mean they lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Those weightlifters aren't professionals. The NPC is amatuers and you're puffing them up. You should know, you edited them into the article. See your talk page for more.-William 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
They ARE professionals. You become a pro by winning certain NPC shows. Showing their NPC win shows how they turned pro. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Randy Hand- Notability standsards say he must have played in a pro game NFL, CFL, whatever.

- - Here's his NFL page-

- - http://www.nfl.com/player/randyhand/2506784/profile

- - Zero games

- - As for those bodybuilders, the article says they're professional. They aren't, they're amateurs. One of the references for Dunbar and Schoolcraft is this

- - http://web.archive.org/web/20060208184917/http://www.npcnewsonline.com/new/2005usa.html

- - This competition or whatever you call it doesn't fit the notability criteria.

- - Direnzo one of rhe references say she is a pro. It's also a nutrition supplements website. Another reference of hers is a personal website(Dunbar has one of those too). That doesn't make them notable.

- - The 3 bodybuilders have flimsy to no credentials. BTW I've noticed who's the one who put these entries into the article.

- - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Myers,_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=177380152

- - The reference on schoolcraftmakes no mention of her title or that she's a professional. You're puffing these people up into people they aren't.

- - You have a conflict of interests. I'm reverting.

- - The criteria thing I put in, isn't one I made up but what is used on town websites. There's even another version of it. From Cedar Rapids(Its the standard for Iowa towns and cities)

- -

- - I alphabetized the list and took out a duplicate mention of Deion Sanders but you unthinkingly undid that productive work

A reply back to your talk page isn't vandalism either.

Citations of personal websites and blogspot blogs aren't ways to build notability.

(I'll leave Hildebrand up but how about you writing an article on them?)-William 00:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • First, there is no conflict of interest. Just because I put them in the article doesn't make a conflict of interest. If you actually believe there is a COI, then you should immediately report it to the COIN, then they can laugh at you for thinking that is a COI.
Why don't you write a wikipedia article about these people if you think they're so notable? Writing an article isn't hard to do. I've written around 85[7], almost all qualify as stubs.
Mike Greenwell also looks dubious to me for inclusion in the article. His business is in Cape Coral(He's in that city's article) and he lives in Alva.
Lastly, I also asked about those notices with an editor who puts them into (Cities in Iowa articles) articles. The talk page post is here[8]. I don't know this editor from squat except that he came up and put one of those notices into an article after I did an edit[9] last month.- William 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I may end up having to write them, soley to satisfy your complaints but, to be blunt, I had to contribute to what I see is a problem with stubs. Wikipedia has too many articles that are a couple of sentences and never get expanded further. Bodybuilding is an obscure enough sport and solid reliable sources are difficult to find sometimes, especially when talking about older competitors. So sometimes a less than ideal one gets used.....And then someone comes along and wants to complain about non-controversial items and the source. Regardless, I've shown that Schoolcraft DiRenzo are absolutely a professionals, using reliable sources and that alone makes them pass WP:ATHLETE. The NPC source can be used to establish Schoolcraft's residence. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NLIST states, "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability." As that is given as an example, I hold that the principle also applies to lists of notable residents of places. While an article in WP about a person may not be necessary to include that person in a list of notable residents, they must meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having an article that has not been deleted is, in my view, evidence that a person meets the notability criteria. Absent such an article, notability must be established directly. -- Donald Albury 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have posted a couple of reliable sources that show Schoolcraft is a professional, which establishes her notability directly as professional athletes are notable. I'm not even going to work on Dunbar and DiRenzo was moved. Similarly, Olympians are notable and we can establish directly that Hildebrand was an Olympian and lives in Ft. Myers..... direct notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Earlier I said[10] I asked another editor for an opinion. He has replied[11]. I think what he wrote is worth reading.- William 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like he is saying what I've said; that a person can be notable without having an article. These aren't cases of some garage band or author that has some pretty debateable notability. Professional athletes are notable. Olympians are notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually I list residents if they have Wikipedia articles - but if a news article says "So and so is a famous resident" that also works WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/peggy.htm
    Triggered by \b(easy)?(hairgrowth|bodybuilding(?!-magazin)|weightloss?|mafiawar|sixpackabs)(secret)?\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate

There is a debate going on in the climate section of the article. As Niteshift36 has suggested, you (74.89.72.253, Bigragu2, and UltraSnowstorm) should have debated here on the talk page instead of edit warring on the article.

The 18 C isotherm is taken as 64 F in most scholarly sources and articles. This is valid for both the A climate isotherm and B climate h/k isotherms. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

As you can see a quick Google search with the right search query (köppen 18 64) comes up with these results (and many others) in less than 10 seconds. In short there was no reason to edit war back and forth for days. Before getting into a debate, especially an edit war, please make a quick research. Berkserker (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, not just them....all of you need to reach a consensus here. Not edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, seems now you are in it as well.. Berkserker (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no position one way or the other. But enough editors have removed it to merit a discussion. Forcing it back in and acting like it's just everyone else is not helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Forcing it back? I didn't take part in this debate at any point. I saw your warning to other users, reviewed the edit warring content, provided sources and ended the ambiguity. The only involvement I had was about a month ago when I had reverted a good faith edit stating the reason. There wasn't a dispute back then. One month later I saw your message in the form of an edit explanation on my watch list. Then I came in to help out the situation. Declaring me part of this content dispute in an indirect manner is not appropriate. You should have reviewed the case more carefully before commenting on my actions. I was supporting your cause and didn't revert your edits. It is clear from my explanation that I supported your removal of content. Then I listed some sources and ended the confusion. This was something the other users should have done, not me. I wasn't involved in this debate. After the sources were provided, I changed the article content. Thats it. Do not try to twist the truth here. It is not ethical. Berkserker (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who is supporting my actions or not. The fact is, over the part month or so, it has been disputed by multiple editors. It needs discussed here before it gets put back into the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I said that since you thought I reverted your edit. That's not the case. Like you said it doesn't matter, I was only explaining like any responsible person would do. Now lets get back to the case. Have you read the sources? There is nothing to dispute about anymore. That edit war needed a dispute resolution since it was all subjective and personal. Now there are the sources. The case doesn't require a dispute resolution anymore. I don't see your point. Berkserker (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no position on the material. My position is on the article being changed repeatedly without any discussion at all. I don't know if a .1 degree difference is being too technical or not. It's not my field. What I do know is a reliable source that actually states the classification, rather than one that makes us debate numbers on a scale, would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to have a position on the material. It isn't a subjective topic to have a debate on anymore. The sources are clear. It was subjective when the other users were in an edit war, it no longer is so. This is why I said your last removal of info was disruptive. I supported your initial removal because there was a dispute and it was in line with Wikipedia guidelines to remove it and continue the debate on the talk page. This is why I came in to help and hopefully mediate. Provided the sources and brought back the correct version to the article. Then you deleted it. This was what initiated the problem. This is why you and I are having a conflict. I guess you misinterpreted the situation that caused this misunderstanding. Please explain, otherwise you are leaving me in the dark here. If you don't, what you suggest is unscientific and without reason. Berkserker (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • How about if we hear from the others? And I've explained my reason for removal. Calling it disruptive and telling me that my actions are "without reason" is just lakcing in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not. If you don't explain your reasoning how can I understand it? I am not supposed to make any guesses. I am being tolerant towards you even after your hostile approach despite my peaceful and constructive entry into the discussion. If I had another intension, this definitely wouldn't be how I would be addressing you after that disrespectful and sarcastic first reply. So please stay on topic.
As for the topic of interest, have you read the sources? If you had done so why do you still need subjective opinions of editors to be convinced? This shows me you have a position on the material and you want to ignore the sources. It makes you no different than the editors who got into this dispute. Your initial motive was right, but now it is getting out of focus. If you don't explain, this is the only interpretation I can come up with. Berkserker (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. I've been civil. You should be too. Since they removed it first, perhaps we should ask @Bigragu2: and @UltraSnowstorm: for their positions on it. I removed it because the material was disputed and removed more than once by different editors. It merited a discussion. I've explained that to you. Flooding me with a bunch of links to charts doesn't really help. What I said would probably help from my POV is an actual reliable source that actually makes the designation, not charts where you and Snowstorm can disagree over a fraction of a degree. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I agree that it probably is Aw, but I don't know if the fraction difference in metric conversion matters for it or not. That's what I'm hoping UltraSnowstorm can tell me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I respectfully disagree that you have been civil, but I am willing to put this behind us. It felt like a personal attack. Those sources were not directed at you but at other users. I came in to help your cause. They were claiming the threshold was 64.4 F, those sources show the threshold is actually 64 F. I had written that to @UltraSnowstorm: a month ago, but instead of researching he chose to revert and ignore. Why are you taking it personal? Berkserker (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
As for your question whether fraction of a degree matters: Yes it does not, but there is a catch. Subtropical climates are categorised as mesothermal climates (intermediate) while tropical climates are categorised as megathermal or macrothermal climates. If anything is going to be rounded up, that would be for the "main" climate not the "transitional". Subtropical or warm temperate climate terminology were developed in the first place to form an intermediary buffer zone between the "main" tropical and continental climates. It covers a great range of 0-18 C coldest month means, so there are still debates going on in the climatological community whether to divide that zone into two, since according to the current scheme, New York and Tampa have the same climate, even Boston was in this zone when the threshold was -3 C according to the initial classification. Since the "macro" climate is tropical, a value of 63.7 can be rounded up to 64 F, but the other way around (64.2 to 63.9) is not a sound argument. Berkserker (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Then disagree that I've been civil. If you can't own your actions, there's no point in talking to you about it further. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I am behind everything I've said, unlike you i'm not turning a blind eye to the earlier messages in a conversation. Berkserker (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mass shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Niteshift36: Can you please explain why the content about the mass shooting was removed? You have commented "not yet", as in? Berkserker (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Now you're interested in this too? Yeah, go look at the talk page for the article on the incident that we DO link to. There is some doubt about how notable this actually is. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This is your definition of being civil, giving snarky replies? You say it as if I can't be interested in it. Please do not direct your comments at me, but at the topic. I asked a simple question and I got my answer. Thats all I needed. Berkserker (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I gave up trying to be civil with you. The snark came after you've taken us down that road. Pretty sure you could have cared less about the topic if any other editor had reverted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I advise you to go up and read everything in the right chronological order. "Um, not just them...." Your first ever 4 words. Enough said. And yes I asked about the mass shooting because your behaviour was starting to become suspicious. Berkserker (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't need to read it, I wrote it. I know what I said. Don't "advise" me to do anything. My behavior is "suspicious"? Then I suggest you dash over to ANI and make a complaint. Let me know how that turns out. You've done nothing else on Wikipedia for the past 4 days but hump my leg. Isn't there someone else you can troll? follow my edits. Isn't there some other editor that needs your attention. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You haven't done anything to be reported yet, but you are acting borderline. I have only asked you to act civil towards me from the very start, nothing else. No need to escalate things and make unsupported claims. Yes, I haven't done anything "else on Wikipedia for the past 4 days", but that isn't to "hump your leg".. I am a busy person, but I created enough time to answer you once a day. Why do you have to take it negative? I took it seriously and worth writing about and replied to your each word. Where I come from this is how you respect a stranger.. Wouldn't be the case if I just had ignored your response. The reason why I got involved in this case in the first place was I saw your callout and came in to help a situation I wasn't involved in, since your action plan was right (to remove the content), and non of my comments were directed at you, but then I was shocked to see how you replied to my message to the other users. The snark therefore began in the very first sentence. Of course at first I reacted to such an unfair and disrespectful comment, but for the rest of the conversation tried to reach out to you because I thought there was a misunderstanding. I still think thats the case (you thought I was addressing you in the very first message and responded defensively). Even after all the accusation, I was still writing topic related responses at the very end, if this isn't goodwill I don't know what is.. I just asked you to do the same. Berkserker (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Gee, I struck that comment. I guess you didn't realize that. Why are you cluttering THIS discussion with your whining about a different discussion? Please stop being disruptive to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Look, forget it. I thought you could step it up, but seems not.. You are in denial. It is hopeless.. Lets keep the contact to a minimum, just to solve wiki based topics. Cheers! Berkserker (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Asking for a topic related response right after that was demanded of you. Do you also say "I quit" after you have been fired? Very mature.. I don't have time for your games. I already responded to your shooting related question, fair enough, wait for the talk page discussion to end. Berkserker (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The topic is closed. Berkserker (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History????

It stops in 1947? This seems to leave out a huge chunk of it's rise as a city and in the decline of the 70s and rebirth in the 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE96:AD70:D902:A224:EAA5:5BEE (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Myers,_Florida/Archive_1&oldid=1234326323"