User talk:Jim 2 Michael

Welcome!

Hi Jim 2 Michael! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jim Michael 2. My previous computer suddenly stopped working & I don't know my previous account's password. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really gotta write your passwords down or something, man. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2023 Titan submersible incident

On 20 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Titan submersible incident, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2023 Fort Worth shooting

A tag has been placed on 2023 Fort Worth shooting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A couple of sources with significant coverage would overcome WP:NEWS. It appears to have no lasting effect and should either be deleted or added to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of July 2023 Tel Aviv attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article July 2023 Tel Aviv attack 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/July 2023 Tel Aviv attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2023 Fort Worth shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 Fort Worth shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Fort Worth shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WWGB (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barbie Kardashian case

The article Barbie Kardashian case has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to be notable via WP:GNG, and is based entirely on a singular source considered non-reliable per WP:RSP

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. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Barbie Kardashian case for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—siro χ o 08:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings

If you have a problem with another use, then please take it elsewhere than on an article's talk page. The goal of the talk page for an article is to improve the article. Making false claims against another editor is not permissible. To quote from WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. To quote from an example at ASPERSIONS: Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Falsely claiming that another user is leading other editors is a problem. Falsely claiming that another user made edits that they did not is a problem. I will say that I believe that the discussion has become heated at times, but everyone needs to be more cautious about remaining civil. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't falsely accused anyone of anything, nor have I made serious accusations. Everything I've written on that talk page is relevant & true, including mentioning other articles about mass/spree shootings for comparison. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you made two false accusations against another user without evidence with both implying misconduct. If you want, go check the edit history at the other article as I already have. The edits you claimed another user made were not made by that user. I have no idea who made the edits you are claiming to have seen, but I see no proof that it is the user you are accusing. Additionally, that user isn't leading anyone to my complete knowledge. I have not been contacted by anyone to support either side of the discussion. Again, please be more cautious. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What two false accusations?

Which other article? If you mean Robb Elementary School shooting, LC did push for inclusion of not only the victims' names but also mini-bios of them. You can see the discussion about that on Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about LC leading the push to include victims' names on articles about US shootings, that's clearly true. He comments more frequently and vehemently on that topic than anyone else does & has been doing so for years. He repeatedly tried to close the ongoing discussion & strawmans those who want to exclude the names by claiming that we asserting that the victims don't matter. Everyone else in that discussion is adding to it in a reasonable way. I'm not the only person in that discussion to point out that his conduct on there is unreasonable. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying just to the last comment.) What two false accusations? The two I removed from your comment on the talk page. Regarding the other article, your words were incorrect then. On the Lewiston talk page, you said that the user added the information to the article. Here you are saying they only discussed it on the talk page. That is a very key difference. Claiming that someone added info to the article is very different than someone discussing adding the information on the talk page. Regarding the second part, there is a difference being someone being active on a talk page and someone organizing users. Just be careful with how you word it. Regarding anything else, my first sentence from this discussion applies: {{If you have a problem with another [user], then please take it elsewhere than on an article's talk page.}} I get that the other users are saying stuff on that talk page. But that is from comments made to that talk page alone, not from issues elsewhere on the site. If you believe that a user is causing problems, then you should make a report to an appropriate noticeboard. (That was why I said everyone needs to be more cautious, but I guess I was not clear enough about things. Sorry for the trouble there.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said that LC is the leader of the push to include victims' names on articles about US shootings. I didn't say or mean that he's organising editors who agree with him. I mean that he's leading discussions by being the most insistent & frequent editor to them. I haven't reported him; now that he's blocked I don't intend to. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please and thank you. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a true, relevant, reasonable, correctly-placed criticism. It's not a personal attack to say that LC's insistence on including victims' names is limited to articles about US shootings. When one editor only is being unreasonable in a discussion, it's correct to criticise them for doing so. LC is the only contributor to the discussion who's breaking the rules by repeatedly, prematurely closing an ongoing discussion which he's a major part of as well as strawmanning those who disagree with him. I don't know how anyone could think that he's in the right or that I'm in the wrong. I've just found out that he's temporarily blocked. I edit frequently & the only time I disagree with him is in regard to including names of non-notable people on articles about US shootings. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the other user your are having issues with is in the right at all. In fact, I had to partly remove a comment the other user made from the article's talk page as well. They just didn't get a comment from myself because they had been blocked prior to it.

Based on your words, there is still an issue that has not been resolved, particularly the [...] only contributor to the discussion who's breaking the rules by repeatedly part. If so, then you should bring it up with administrators or a noticeboard if you feel it is a problem instead of on the article's talk page.

The problem with the comment was the text in parathesis. The text was fine without the part in parathesis and was fine later on when you mentioned that we shouldn't have different rules depending on where it happened. However, the parathesis text inferred that the user only cared about naming victims when it was within the United States. Had you of instead just said that "We don't have these discussion on articles outside the US" or "We don't include the names of victims when the incident happened outside the United States" then it would have been fine. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Criticism about the content is fine for the article's talk page. Criticism about another editor's editing is not fine. That's the distinction here. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC) (Amended 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Another editor reverted LC's wrongful closings of the discussion, so I didn't feel I needed to take the complaint elsewhere. After his continued strawmanning, I considered making a complaint, but now that he's been blocked it's unlikely to be necessary. Victims' names & discussions about including them have appeared on many articles about mass murders in countries other than the US, but it's far less common. The main reason for that is that most of the editors who are (in favour of) adding victims' names to US attacks don't edit articles about attacks in other countries. This is what leads to consensuses to differ for the same types of events in different countries, which is unbalanced. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andre🚐 20:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

Apparently, you created the Egbekaw massacre article the same very minute that I wrote in my edit summary that we might need a separate article for the massacre. I can definitely get used to that :P Thank you, and cheers! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jim 2 Michael. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings 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/October 2023 Hartlepool stabbings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about November 2023 Terrorist Encounter in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Hello, Jim 2 Michael

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Rusalkii and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect November 2023 Terrorist Encounter in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 5 § November 2023 Terrorist Encounter in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rusalkii}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Rusalkii (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]