User talk:65HCA7/2016 archive

2015 2017

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Gilliam: Thank you for giving me the rollback feature. I appreciate being trusted and promise to use rollback in my ongoing fight against vandalism on Wikipedia. -- Bad Weather 2014 ^{My work • What's wrong?} 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max (given name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxwell and Maxine. 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) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney weather

Please note that I have moved the discussion on Sydney's weather from my talk page to Talk:Sydney#Recent removal of content 24 March 2016. As I have stated there, the content that you keep removing is not the opinion of some random individual. The source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics,[1] which an official Australian Government organisation. It is based on data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, which is the official Australian Government organisation responsible for weather in Australia. As such it constitutes an authoritative source. The statement does not constitute an opinion or personal synthesis. It's regarded to be fact because of the authority of the source. Please note that this has been discussed numerous times (look through the article's talk page archives). That you do not agree with it is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you want this content removed, you need a source with more authority than the one used. However, even that would not justify removal. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, all relevant points of view need to be equally addressed. If you really want this removed, you need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page and gain consensus to remove content based on authoritative sources. I'd like to remind you that, per WP:BRD, when you make a bold edit,[2] and it is reverted,[3] you should start discussing it then, not prior to making the edit again.[4] While the matter is under discussion, you should not edit the disputed text (which includes removing it again) and, while discussion is underway, the status quo reigns. I note you only have 536 edits under your belt, so you may not have been aware of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for you!

The Multiple Barnstar

Three barnstars for everyone who fought the vandalism at Paint River. The Teamwork Barnstar for working together as a team to fight the vandal. The Minor Barnstar since rollbacks are, (for some reason) marked as minor edits. The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for fighting the vandal overall. Good work, team. Peter Sam Fan 12:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter SamFan: Thank you so much for the barnstars! --YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotties listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hotties. Since you had some involvement with the Hotties redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Slashme (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felt temperature on climate sections

Hi, you have mentioned on the Batman article that the felt temperature classification is an opinion and not sourced. The truth is most climate sections have this classification. You can check many locations around the world and see for yourself. You can also click here to see the felt temperature classification that is usually being used on these articles. Cheers! Berkserker (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berkserker: I'm not sure I can trust an unreferenced stub article like that. Who developed it, and what is its claim of significance? In reality, terms like that are highly subjective. This system's "mild" and "pleasant" are what I would refer to as "cool". And how is 21°C warm by any stretch? I'd consider that cool to mild.

With no link indicating that these statements follow this non-notable, subjective system that gets no Google hits except Wikipedia and mirrors, it seems to constitute an opinion, and per WP:NPOV, opinions cannot be passed off as fact. We can all agree that George Washington became president in 1789; that's a fact that can be verified. We can also agree that a certain city has average summer highs of 33°C; that's also a fact that can be verified. But whether that temperature is mild, warm, hot, or sweltering is up for debate, unless we include a reference to a reliable classification system stating it. For example, "X city has cold winters and warm summers" is by itself passing it off as opinion, because some users could agree with that subjective statement. However, "Under the Foobar climate classification, X city has a humid subtropical climate with cold winters and warm summers" includes the source for those opinions (a reliable, authoritative source) and is not passing subjective statements off as fact.

Hope this clears my edit up. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree. The only problem is almost all climate sections have this classification, in order to change thousands of articles, one needs to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology and ask for advice. I only try to keep consistency between articles. Berkserker (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berkserker: Thank you for the link; I will post there later today when I have time. Have a nice day! YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Best regards. Berkserker (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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