User talk:Jemma88085

Hello, Jemma88085 and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2018

Hello, I'm Lard Almighty. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rolf Harris have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder

Hi Jemma88085. You've added this Category three times to Rolf Harris. Could you explain why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Goldwater rule. A formal psychiatric diagnosis can only be made by a qualified doctor who has actually met the person. The opinions of media talking heads do not constitute a medical diagnosis. Also, categories should be clearly supported by text and citations in the article, and not go out on a limb which leads to the addition of unsourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mark Latham. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit at Mark Latham is a form of vandalism. You have been asked several times not to introduce medical diagnoses to BLP articles unless there is a proper source. Please don't do this again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, minor edits, and categories

The alphabetization of categories is not supported by WP:Categories, and if it were, it would be a WP:Minor edit. You also need to use WP:edit summaries. Outriggr (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Savile

Could you please not add Category:Dark triad as you did here, unless you have sources to support it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savile is referred to as having it on the Category:Dark triad page. See for yourself.Jemma88085 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?? I've just removed it, so how can it appear there? Categories need to be supported by the content of the article on which they appear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at Category:Dark triad#Components - it's even clearly referenced. Savile had the dark triad, and should be listed as such.Jemma88085 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think you mean Dark triad#Components? Yes, ok this is sourced in the Jimmy Savile arrticle, to that Oliver James article in The Guardian. It seems Val Burns is not really a notable expert, so I'm wondering if that source should be included or not. She makes no mention of James (or any other expert for, that matter) and her article is more of a chatty blog. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is Wikipedia, so does Category:Dark triad go on Savile's profile or not? Personally, I vote yes.Jemma88085 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've restored it for now, since Oliver James may be regarded as an expert in the field. Nevertheless, other editors may not so so convinced by a single newspaper article. This seems to be a classic case of a "retrospective clinical diagnosis" and so is a little controversial. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets removed again. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. All the same, after what we now know about Savile, I'm more inclined to believe his victims than his supporters and apologists. The diagnosis fits him spot on.Jemma88085 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this "diagnosis" has come from anything reported by any of his victims. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any of his firsthand victims were trained psychologists. His behaviour - as reported by those of his victims who have come forward - certainly does fit the bill of a Machiavellian, narcissistic sociopath. Jemma88085 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savile has been described as all sorts of things, but a medical diagnosis must come from a reliable source. There is also a problem with the Goldwater rule as previously mentioned. Oliver James (psychologist) probably didn't meet Savile but still offered his two cents' worth, which is not the same thing as a formal diagnosis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category for defining characteristics

See WP:CATDEFINING. Editor2020 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting

Hi Jemma88085

Please stop alphabetically sorting the categories on articles, as you did today on several articles. There has never been a consensus on favour of alphabetical sorting: see MOS:CATORDER.

Also, please use edit summaries to explain what each edit does, and why.

Both these points were raised above by @Outriggr, nearly a month ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what that means.Jemma88085 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.

Very simply, stop changing the order of categories in articles. Also, when you make an edit, however minor, put a summary of the edit in the Edit summary box (click the link if you don't know what that is). Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get the second part, I'll be sure to do that from now on. But what's wrong with alphabetising certain articles?Jemma88085 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From MOS:CATORDER: "Eponymous categories should appear first. Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." I bolded the last sentence. It is better to order categories by significance or importance rather than alphabetically. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell

Hi Jemma88085. Please don't add Categories just because you think they "make sense". Please add Categories only if there is material in the article that directly supports that addition. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King

I am at a loss to understand why you recently added Category:Writers about activism and social change to this article. He often writes about various issues that he cares about, but to my knowledge, he has not written about the subject of activism and social change. As several other editors have asked you, please be more careful in your use of categories. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells

I know Wells wrote about a great many subjects in his prodigous output, and he certainly advocated social change. But I'm not sure which if any of his writings would warrant his inclusion in Category:Writers about activism and social change. I've added a head note to make it clear that the category is for people who have written about the subject of activism and social change. It's not clear to me that Wells warrants inclusion -- however, I've left the category for now and I'm awaiting your reply before proceeding. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bill Cosby. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ray Hadley. Please do not add categories to an article unless they are based on cited information in that article (and they are also defining characteristics of that subject). Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Edit summary

Use edit-summaries, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions BLP alert, please read

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

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Your recent editing history at Maccabean Revolt 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy of spirituality has been nominated for discussion

Category:Philosophy of spirituality, 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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Centre for Public Christianity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Founders of schools of philosophy

A tag has been placed on Category:Founders of schools of philosophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of the United States Electoral College has been nominated for discussion

Category:Critics of the United States Electoral College, 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Founders of philosophical traditions has been nominated for deletion

Category:Founders of philosophical traditions has been nominated for deletion. 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. - car chasm (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]