User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1

Welcome!

	Hello Jim Michael Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello Jim Michael, and on behalf of the Wikipedia community welcome to Wikipedia!I'm Burningview, one of the Millions of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for joining the community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help pages   Tutorial   How to write a great article   Manual of Style If you are interested in a specific topic here on Wikipedia, you can join a Wikiproject. There are Wikiprojects for almost any topic on the Wiki. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

 Burningview  ✉ 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace position

Hi, and welcome. You just moved the birthplace of Zazi out of the lede, indicating it was not in the correct position. Why would you say that?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it from inside brackets in the first sentence to the beginning of the Early life section, which is the standard position for the birthplace in a biography on English Wikipedia, along with it being stated in the infobox. It is standard to have the birthplace in brackets on German Wikipedia, for example, which is probably why it is sometimes wrongly put there on English Wikipedia. However, it is not the format for English WP - as you can see from the vast majority of bios on English WP, the birthplace should not be in brackets in the first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that used to be the guideline on English Wikipedia. But that guideline was deprecated, bringing it into synch with encyclopedias and what people felt was logical, some months ago (well before you joined wikipedia ... in this form, at least).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So the edit of mine in question was good? WP:Manual of style#Brackets and parentheses shows the lifespan - but not the place of birth - of an example, in brackets. That is why I believe the birthplace of Zazi should be where I moved it to. Whilst it is certainly important enough to include in the lead that he is Afghan, I can't see how his exact birthplace is relevant enough for the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It used to be that putting the place of birth in the lead sentence was deprecated. Discussion was had. I can look for it if important. The thrust was that certainly the place of birth is as important generally as the day of the month the person was born, and it accords w/enclopedias of note to reflect both in the first sentence, so the language suggesting that it was wrong to reflect the place of birth in the first sentence was deleted/deprecated. It's fine to do so, and many editors (me included) view it as preferable. There is one odd fellow who says -- well, my interpretation is it once was a rule, so I follow it. My question as to whether, if he is an American, he still follows the strictures of Prohibition did not yield a response.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of English WP bios do not have the birthplace in brackets in the first sentence of the article. If that is wrong, there are hundreds of thousands of articles that need changing in that respect. I can't find anything that says the birthplace should be in brackets in the first sentence. I have seen many edits by many editors to move the birthplace from being in brackets to being in the Early life section or second paragraph - that is why I did likewise. If there is any ruling that the birthplace should be in brackets, please tell me where it is, the only mention I see is the Manual of Style link which show lifespan in brackets, not birthplace. If an infobox is present, the birth info is clearly displayed at the top of the article, negating the need for it in the article's first sentence. I don't wish to change the rules regarding this matter; I only wish to follow the current rule, whatever that may be. If you can find the new(ish) guideline / rule / debate with consensus stating that the birthplace should be in brackets in the first sentence, please direct me to it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• There once was a rule that led to the present state. That rule has been changed. The new rule did not mandate that all bios be changed, but deleted the guideline that led to its existence, for the indicated reasons. As to otherstuffexists, there's a rule for that. If I get a chance, I'll search for the discussion that led to the old rule. There is one (to me, quite odd) editor who when I pointed this out, and pointed to the old discussion, said well ... as there used to be a rule, I will make changes in accordance with the old rule (which was deleted). I asked him if he is an American if he is also not drinking, as Prohibition used to exist. He has still not responded. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Here you go -- you will find a spirited August 2009 discussion here.

That discussion did not result in consensus, which means there is no new rule stating that the places of birth and death should be in brackets in a biography's first sentence. I think the best format is to have the places of birth & death in the infobox as well as the place of birth towards the beginning of the article and the place of death towards the end of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It certainly did. And as a result of the consensus, the prior restriction was lifted. It led to a consensus that resulted in the removal of the old rule, that the place of birth not be in the first sentence, for the indicated reasons. It did not require that it be in the first sentence or alternately elsewhere. There was, therefore, no requirement leading to your removal of it from the first sentence at Zazi, as it was perfectly fine as it was. I disagree with your thinking, as did the consensus of those who discussed it, which led to the change. As to the infobox, it is viewed as separate from the article for most all purposes (inlining, etc.). Otherwise, you would not repeat in the infobox what we have in the article, as it would be redundant.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't shown any guideline or policy that says birth or death places should be in brackets. If a new rule exists that says they should be, then that would be down somewhere, not just discussed on talk pages. On WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death, every example gives dates in brackets. None of the examples give the birthplace or deathplace in brackets. The first example is Charles Darwin, the second is Serena Williams. Both their articles give the same format: dates, but not places, in brackets. If you want to change policy to what you want it to be, you would have to change the WP:Manual of Style page to show that dates should be in brackets. As it doesn't say that dates should be in brackets, they shouldn't be. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• There was a policy that said they should not be in the first sentence. That policy was deleted nine months ago. For the reasons indicated in the consensus discussion that I searched for for you, and diff'd above. It does not now say that it must be in the first sentence. Nor does it say that it must not be in the first sentence -- for the reasons state by the editors in the consensus discussion. There is no policy reason now for you to change a pre-existing article that reflects that information in the first sentence, as you did at the Zazi article. Examples are simply examples -- the fact that reflecting the birthplace in the first sentence is not reflected in an example is no reason to change it. You have before you the considered consensus discussion that led to the contrary instruction being deleted. That's what you have that is on point. In no way does wikipedia suggest that its examples cover the full terrain of what is permissible. Nor is that suggested in the meaning of the phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

re James Bulger

Hi there, Jim Michael
I 'fixed' the formatting of reference #32 re Venables return to jail, then noticed that info is repeated in th article. It's under last sentence "Appeal and release" and "Ongoing enforcement actions". Second line and title can probably be deleted. As you are working on this I will leave it to you to fix, if you wish, so we aren't edit conflicting each other.

• NB "Jakob Boote" was only just put in by 212.219.118.129, I suggest it be deleted. I tried and got 'ec'. —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Digby's mum

the fact that his not notable mother is called........ is not notable and adds nothing of any value, as I see it simply adds another citation that his not notable grieving in private mother would not want to read, please do not add it again, allow not notable people some privacy as per blp policy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:20th-century models

Category:20th-century models, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.

Good spot

Good spot with Kristian Digby, I added him last Monday but it seems some guy removed him without me noticing. Gran² 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I fail to understand why when we are discussing and as I said I will ask the community for opinions as to if your desired edit is closer to policy or my addition and I have requested you offer your desired addition on the talkpage for comparison and you have ignored that consensus forming discussion and you have simply stuffed it into the article anyway, please continue using discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was being bold - I've re-entered the discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem only interested in naming this hanly woman, am I correct in that is your main objective and desire. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the case; I have made several edits to that article, some of which are not connected to her. Whilst I do believe her name should be added, I would say that for any verified long-term sexual partner of any biography subject. It is of more importance that the length of their affair is stated than her name, because it is important to his life. I have no opinion of her or Owen, I am not interested in his music; I only wish to complete an incomplete article. Jim Michael (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider

Hi you seem to be interested in the wikipedia, would you please consider learning to format citations correctly, it you need help with that I would happily teach you to improve your citation style, also please tell me of what value you think this citation is to anybody? Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On the first point, the reference format that I use is a simple format I had seen used on many articles, I see some of the info used in the long style of reference format as being of no or limited use, such as the 'date retrieved' - how is that of any use? On the second point, the ref is the only proof I've found of Owen's son being born in 2006. It is a very reliable source, births have to be registered in the area they occurred, no more than six weeks after the event. By selecting Births England and Wales 1984-2006 (which is free to search), then entering the names in the appropriate boxes, including Ferguson in the mother's maiden name box, it gives the son's entry. The birth was registered far enough into the year for us to be sure that he was born in 2006. I don't know how to give the web address for an individual page on that site. Some newspaper articles give the son's age, but, for example, an article from 2008 giving his age as 2 does not clarify whether his birth year is 2005 or 2006. I only want to improve articles, such Owen's. I am doing my best in that regard; I don't believe I am breaking policy / guidelines reagarding my writing style, but I will try to improve my editing. Jim Michael (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Direct descent

"Direct descendant" is not merely redundant. Direct descendants are distinguished from collateral descendants. -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pål Bang-Hansen

On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pål Bang-Hansen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my careless mistake on April 3. I highlighted a bit too much on the cleanup. Thanks again. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Just FYI, we avoid using the word "claim" because it implies the claim is false. Instead, use "said", "wrote", etc. as applicable. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for details. Yworo (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Hopper

Just wanted to say (and I usually don't do this), such a small edit, but very big respect for a very big Icon. Well done Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy

Hi. I thought you'd appreciate seeing this. Don't let the bedbugs bite! Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for backing my edits. I do not understand why an experienced, knowledgeable, well-educated editor - who has done good work on many articles - also often reverts good edits by good editors on many articles. Jim Michael (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Names & dates in bios

Hello Jim Michael,
I see you have been having a 'vigorous exchange of views' with UserVOBO at Talk:Lech Kaczyński. They also removed the daughter and grandchildrens names from the text at Maria Kaczyńska about 30 hrs ago(it had been there 3 days!). I don't see how this is an invasion of privacy, as the data comes from the mothers' official biography web page! I believe that I have also seen it in several news reports. Are there any wp:BLP guidelines that says this data is not allowed, especially as you have pointed out, with examples, that it is common practice? (even particularly it would seem, post-mortem)

• Forgive me for being picky, but is there a source for the parents names you added to Maria Kaczyńska? At least if it is reliably sourced, editors are less likely to delete it on those grounds alone. You can just let me know the link and I can put it in, if you like. In case you are wondering why I care, I had this article almost to myself for hours at a time, and a lot of it is my editing. (see Here). My first info box from scratch for example. I am trying to avoid having 'ownership' issues ! (hard though after 35 edits !) Look forward to your comments. :-)) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any policy that prohibits stating names and years of birth of close relatives. It is relevant, reliably sourced info that is routinely included on bios on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I could see justification for not stating the full dates of birth of non-notable living people, but if someone wants to exclude names and years of birth of family members they should find a policy or guideline that states that is how things should be. As the conversation on the topic is only between VOBO and me, it's not going anywhere. I don't have a reliable source for Kaczynska's parents' names. They were already stated in her article - I just added them to her infobox. Jim Michael (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Five Daughters

I've expanded this a bit. Could do with some more information though. Feel free to help if you can. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I'm going to submit this to DYK. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jill Dando. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Simple Bob (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not disrupting, I reverted removal of valid infobox info. This warning is wrong, as only two people (of which you are one), not three as you claim, are removing said info. Why are you removing factual info from the infobox? Jim Michael (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct it is two. I thought it was three. However, two of us do disagree over the net worth parameter. Rather than get involved in an edit war, why not discuss it on the article's talk page. I'm more than willing to do that and explain why I think it is incorrect use of the parameter. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do so on there. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

fyi

It's fine for the birthplace to be in brackets. The prior practice was deprecated many months ago.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this on 27 February. WP:Manual of style#Brackets and parentheses still shows the dates, not birthplace, in brackets. Could you leave a link to a guideline / ruling / consensus / policy for putting the birthplace in brackets? Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nolans & WikiProject Lancs & Cumbria

I don't disagree with your reasoning but the project has discussed it's scope on more than one occasion and came to the concensus not to include every person who had some connection with the counties. If the Nolans had been born in Lancashire they'd be in scope but as they were born in Ireland they're out. As a band it's a bit tenuous to say they are in scope because they initially started performing in Blackpool. The point of adding project banners is where the editors who form a project feel they can add to the content and quality of articles. WP:Lancs & Cumbria is mostly about the geography, politics and history of the counties and not so much on the biographies of residents unless they have played a significant part in the geo, pol or hist. NtheP (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Coleen Nolan was born in Blackpool, Lancashire. All the bandmembers grew up in Lancs, at least one was born there and they formed there. Hence they are strongly linked to the county. They are a successful, famous group, and as such have played a significant part in the county's history. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote from WP:PROJ A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles. The editors in WP:L&C don't feel they can or want to coordinate or organise the writing of articles on topics best dealt with elsewhere and therefore elected not to tag a lot of biographical articles especially where other projects e.g. WP:Musicians will do a much better job. The Nolans may be candidates to feature in Portal:Lancashire but the wikiproject isn't interested. NtheP (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary Coleman

Hi, please stop adding the dwarfism category to Coleman's article. He had a congenital liver defect that halted his growth, quite different than dwarfism. GlassCobra 17:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

National days

Hi, please stop removing random national days from the holidays and observations section thank you :). --Rochelimit (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References

I don't care what it says on wikipedia which cant be found but it's wrong. Acedmics teach ref then punc and it should always be this way. And accedmics have a higher authority than what anyone one here has to say about it.KnowIG 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the rule is punctuation before reference. It is Wikipedia rules that we have to follow on this site. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of findmypast

Please have a look at Talk:Richard Dawkins#Dawkins' Father Dead? where I have just mentioned your name in regard to what may be incorrect information in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Local days in holidays and observances

Dear Jim Michael, please refrain from removing local holidays in the holidays and observances section. Currently the holidays and observances section is being cleaned and organized to make it more consistent in terms of standard of formating.

Regarding local holidays, many local holidays has been internationally recognized e.g. Las Fallas. If you remove these local holidays, it means that you will also need to remove some saint days that is not notable except within the formal roman catholic / orthodox community; or some Roman holidays that is not observed anymore but gaining a momentum through certain community feast in Rome and are extreme important in western history.

We are trying to make the holidays and observances more consistent - following a list of holidays in our research - by making a standard rules (which doesn't exist in standard guide at the moment but is edited in my talk page). I see your good intention on cleaning up wikipedia from vandalism, but please refrain from editing this one, because it is a large project of revising 365 days in a year that requires careful editing and constant dedication. Thank you. --Rochelimit (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A clear guideline / rule about what should be included in the Observances section needs to be written. I apologise if I have removed things from that section that should have remained there. My understanding was that if the observance is limited to part of one country, such as one U.S. state, or one province of Canada, that it was insufficiently notable for it to be there. Jim Michael (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sam Big Brother

I know Sam Pepper he went to Pent Valley Technology College in Folkestone. Me and a few other friends and teachers remember him when he went to our school as he was one of the popular people, when he was in school he acted like a twat and nothing has changed since then. So don't delete information of which you don't have a clue of.

For information to be in an article it has to be reliably sourced. Your memory or that of people you know is not sufficient. A reference needs to be added to support a statement that he was born in / grew up in / lives in Folkestone (or anywhere else). The reference currently there only says Kent. Jim Michael (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a local papper in Folkestone called the Folkestone Herald, when it launches a website I will get a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.206.206 (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Hi I noticed you removed the American cats from the Ricky Martin article. Per US Federal Law USC 8, 1402[1] all persons born in Puerto Rico after January 1941 are citizens of the United States at birth. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Hopper

Hi Jim, Happy new year. You made me amused about the sun-tan, thanks, your right, the rest are valid and thanks for replacing them, best wishes for 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of categories

Hello Jim. I'm not sure if you're aware of the guidelines, but Wikipedia:CAT#Categorizing_pages does not suggest that categories should be ordered alphabetically. In fact it suggests they should be in order of significance. I'd advise you to stop reordering categories alphabetically as it's not useful, nor supported by the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that guideline before, and it seems strange that it advises cats are done partially alphabetically, with the most significant first. Most articles have them in alphabetical order, which makes sense - I put some that were not, in the order I thought they should be in, which makes sense. It is often mere opinion which cat is the most significant. How can a person who is an actor and a musician, or a sportsperson-turned-politician have the significance of each of their careers accurately measured against each other? Jim Michael (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you what the guideline says, and suggest that you're wasting time by making the categories in alphabetical order. There's usually some significant categories which could be placed first (e.g. major awards, achievements, etc) so your arbitrary alphabetising of categories isn't particular useful, nor inline with the guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox fields

This information is definitely relevant to the article, but not to the infobox. Template:Infobox person states "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject" (under "Parameters"). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add all of them, there's no criminal or political fields there. However, cause of death and nationality are certainly relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. I removed the others. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking in headings

Just as a general rule, you shouldn't wikilink section headings, even when as on the Peter Tobin talkpage you were trying to be helpful, because it messes up the use of section headings as HTML anchor links for some people. See WP:HEAD, WP:Writing better articles#Headings and WP:ACCESS#Links for chapter and verse. Le Deluge (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gerry Rafferty

Hi. Please stop removing the link to alcoholism. It is appropriately linked per WP:REPEATLINK, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first", and in fact, the first occurrence of the link you keep adding, namely that of alcoholic, should probably not be linked since it is not directly talking about the disease that the subject of the article is connected to in context. In any case, it is acceptable at this juncture to allow for both links. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding this task force to the project banner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cats

Hey Jim hope your well, please take your time adding somer of these criminal cats to BLP articles, a politician that is convicted of fraud belongs in that cat, and not in a cat criminal, please ease up I have had to remove a couple lately and in both cases it has been you that added them. Take the lesser attacking label and definition and you will be doing fine, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see after I raised worries with you about this attacking labeling you seem to have completely ignored me and continued to add the controversial cats without any comment or discussion as regards my objections at all, in this edit you added the contentious categories after I requested you to please stop doing that, why did you continue without any discussion after my comment here> Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not attacking; I thought you meant the 21st century criminals cat. Are you saying that a person convicted of fraud should not be in the fraudsters cat? The usual practice seems to be to include people in every category which applies to them. Jim Michael (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The way to go especially in regard to living people is to put them in the specific cats, not anything that could be imagined, like a politician convinced for fraud goes in that specific cat, we don't want to be pointing a finger at him and calling out , fraudster fraudster fraudster for the rest of his life, actually the wikipedia is about content not catagories - Well cited content, about notable things in notable peoples lives, if you focus on that you will be going in the right direction to improving the wiki. 21st centuary criminals is not for anyone that has been convicted of any crime - it would have 5 million articles ion it. Keep specific and err on the side of caution in regards to living people and you will be doing good. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:John Paul Getty III

Maybe you already know this (but just in case you didn't), altering other editors' legitimate talk page posts, even if you're correcting their spelling or Manual of Style mistakes (as you did with this edit at Talk:John Paul Getty III) is usually against Wikipedia guidelines and accepted practices. According to WP:TPO, "it is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc." Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think editors have to bring talk page headers completely up to article standards. Shearonink (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(deceased)

Somewhat pointless, since about 90% of the people we write about are dead, and so are their relatives. It's an unnecessary addition. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sayers

Hi, Jim. Thanks for your attention to Dorothy L. Sayers, which has been on my copyediting to-do list for ages. Two things that concern me:

• There are now way too many "citation needed" tags. Many of the sentences you tagged are quite uncontroversial, and the inline tags make the text difficult to read. I can try to source some of them, although I don't have access to the best sources at present. In the meantime, what would you think about replacing those tags either with {{Refimprove section}} at the top of each section or with {{Refimprove}} at the top of the article?
• Although the effect was perfectly benign in this case, refactoring other editors' talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers, can be a source of contention. I've found it's usually best to let anomalies that don't grossly affect the readability of the page to stand. (Btw, style guidelines on section headings don't apply to talk pages, so the capitalized titles weren't really errors.) For what it's worth...your mileage may vary :-)

Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several major pieces of important biographical in that article that are unreferenced, including: her marriage, her residences and the deaths of her husband, herself and her son. It also fails to mention grandchildren. I believe it important to specify which pieces of info need referencing, rather than refimprove section which doesn't point out the specific points that need sourcing. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Talk:Tom_Cruise#Rebecca_DeMornay.3F. Looking forward to a reply. Nymf _hideliho! 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Maria Shriver

Please review WP:TPO for what is allowed and not allowed in editing talk page discussion. You broke several of the "do not"s with your edit, so I suggest you do not restore your edits again. if you do, you'l be in danger of being blockled for refactoring talk page comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's too trivial to edit war over, so I won't revert it again. I fixed layout errors and added section headings, both of which are allowed at the link you have provided here. I can't see that I broke any rule with my edit, let alone several. Every comment should be within a section, and a new section should only be started when introducing a new topic. That talk page has comments that are not under any heading and two sections about the same topic. Why have you removed my valid comments from the talk page, and in what way do you think your revert of my edit has improved the talk page? All I can see that has happened is that you've removed my comments and reverted by improvements. Jim Michael (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're solving a non-existant problem. Let it go, life is messy, and talk pages aren't articles. Edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Hi. Thanks for your recent contributions. Please do not edit the talk pages of articles. WP:TPO requires generally that each individual's message is left as is. It is considered bad practice to alter grammar, headings etc. Thank you Span (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't alter grammar. Removing nonsense, insults and mere opinion is not only allowed, but encouraged. In addition, adding headings is good practice, and certainly does not breach any rules. Read the Sectioning and Section headings subsections of the link in your comment, to see that what I did is both allowed and is good practice. Someone saying a show is awful should not be on any talk page. Talk pages are are for improving articles, they are not forums for people to write their opinions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a message board or debating centre. There are many instances in which editing talk pages is allowed. Why would you follow me around in my editing to revert improvements that did not breach policies? Why did you revert my removal of someone saying that Live at the Apollo (TV series) is awful? That editor did not suggest any improvements to the article or give any useful information. He breached thte rules, not me. WP:TPNO says do not use talk pages as a forum; the person who said the show is awful did that. Talk headers say: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Comments that merely say 'I like this' or 'I don't like this' are often added, against the rules, to talk pages. Many editors rightly remove them, so why single me out to tell me off when I am removing inappropriate, irrelevant, unconstructive comments from talk pages, which should never have been added in the first place? Jim Michael (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As WP:TPO says "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Thank you for respecting this. Span (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect the rules, but not useless comments on talk pages of the 'I (don't) like this show' variety. The type of person who leaves a comment on a talk page that merely says something along the lines of 'I watched this show and it's awful' is not going to be a regular constructive editor; it would be ridiculous to wait for a reply from them which would likely never come. We don't say if a show is good or bad, we only present relevant information about it in a neutral way. The talk page guidelines clearly say that forum comments of that type should not be on talk pages, as they are only for co-ordinating improvements to the article. A subsection of TPO, Fixing layout errors, says to add headings to comments that don't have them, which is one of the things I did, which you reverted. Jim Michael (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim, the talk pages are a record of the communities discussions. They are referred to across Wikipedia on user pages, in project discussions, in ANI, everywhere through the title headings that commenters have used. If you change these the links no longer work, even if you capitalise a word that someone saw fit not to capitalise. I understand this may be a compulsion for you, but please leave the talk page punctuation, headings, titles and grammar as they are. Thank you. Span (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan

This article might interest you as it is linked to the murder of Melanie Hall.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Sian O'Callaghan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Sian O'Callaghan 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/Death of Sian O'Callaghan 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you feel like it please participate in the articles Afd discussion. As you seem to be interested in the subject. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Katy Perry

Can you please help me to understand you statement "we always put the article in the eponymous cat in cases where both exist" in context of the Katy Perry article. It seems dedundant to me to put Katy Perry in the cat "Katy Perry". Is it not self evident that the article automatically belongs in that cat? --BwB (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It always is the case where there is an eponymous cat: Category:Lady Gaga, Category:Christina Aguilera, Category:Britney Spears, Category:Madonna (entertainer), Category:Elton John, Category:Rod Stewart, Category:Paul McCartney etc. all contain the subject's article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I do not know what you mean by "an eponymous cat". --BwB (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It means a category named after a person, such as the one in question and those I've listed. Katy Perry should be in her category, as Lady Gaga, Paul McCartney etc. are in their respective eponymous cats. The large majority of people don't have their own cat, but when it exists, the person should always be in it. Jim Michael (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jim. --BwB (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

William Lipscomb

I see that you flagged the Biography section as unsourced. Although I did not write this section, I see that most of it can be verified in the first paragraph of Lipscomb's short Nobel autobiography here. I wonder if you could add the reference? I am no longer editing the page because I have a close connection to the subject. jslipscomb (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done However, that does not verify all the info in the Biography section of the article; that section is far too short. The kind of family info in his NNDB profile should be added, but NNDB is no longer allowed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia. You are entitled to edit your father's article, or any other. It is unfortunate that you have been made to feel unwelcome; it seems that some editors felt you were promoting his work rather than being neutral. Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Russell Brand

Nice edit removing the quotes from the lead. If there is a section for Reception or Reviews etc those kinds of quotes could be put there. Of they could be parked on the Talk Page if you can't find a good place at present. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no quotes in the article now; I can't see any place for the two I removed from the lead to be inserted. Should a Reception or Reviews section be added to the article? Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I'm going to post a comment on the RB talk page so others can also join in. thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Mrs. Middleton

Why should we keep her maiden name in the infobox? For example, looking at Princess Diana's article, she doesn't have her ma's maiden name in it. Estheroliver (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Diana's has her mother's remarried surname only in the infobox; Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon has her mother's maiden name only in the ibox; Sarah, Duchess of York has her mother's remarried surname and her maiden name in the ibox; Sophie, Countess of Wessex has only her married name there. If there is a rule, it isn't applied consistently. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Mizzi

Hi, I reffed the bit about the shop. Don't know if it's true that she founded her own business at 15, but stranger things have happened. Look at the way Alan Sugar goes on about how he got started, and I seem to recall somewhere reading that Richard Branson was making business deals at school. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mothers are not important?

Whack!

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the Relations field in the politician infobox is only meant to include notable relatives - those with their own articles. Arnold Schwarzenegger's father has an article, but his mother and half-brother do not. Jim Michael (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, according to your thinking, three of his children aren't notable either. I can't believe you are pursuing this discussion. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Balls - citation required

Hi, what content are you requesting a citation for there? Does this cover some or all of it? thanks

• - http://www.coopseurope.coop/spip.php?article239 - Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That ref should be added to the Early life section of his article, along with some info from it, as it has info about his secondary and tertiary education. However, we still need refs for his birthplace and primary education. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

birthplace and primary education - right, looking, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

born in Norwich and went to Crossdale drive primary school - http://www.edballs.co.uk/index.jsp?t=biography - primary citations but used only for simple biographical details about the subject should be ok? This one seems to cover most of them (apart from the violin) - Born in Norwich. His father is a zoologist - 1972: Attends Bawburgh Primary School, Norwich, and later Crossdale Drive Primary School in Nottinghamshire - 1978: Goes to the private, all-boys Nottingham High School - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ed-balls-running-his-race-to-the-beat-of-the-peoples-drum-2077196.htmlOff2riorob (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I added two of them, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

Well caught, cheers, too busy trying to rewrite para and place ref correctly to notice. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Murders by person

Category:Murders by person, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon 'unsourced' template

Hi Jim,

I saw you added a {{BLP unsourced section|date=July 2011}} template to Tristane Banon.

Can you amplify some here? I had thought it adequately cited.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The section I've templated has no online sourcing. It mentions some of her writing, but those works are not easily verifiable to readers of her article. Online sources verifying the info in that section should be added. Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, understood. I noticed the deficiency myself. Unfortunately French letters can be said to be quite a lot more diffuse than English ones and it's not unusual for even quite good novels to go entirely unnoticed. I'll see what I can do, but you're asking a tough one here and they will cetainly be French. As far as I can remember I copied over all the relevant ones cited in the French wiki. Erm ... I don't want to be contentious but the emphasis citing RS as far as I know has always been [primarily on books and journals as choicest. As I say I'll see what I can do to address your concerns, but I have to say that ultimately the existing cites must be held to be more than adequate, of course, to rebut any challenges and the template eventually removed.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I've now included references from three sources, Henry Samuel's recent Daily Telegraph profile, Atlantico's profile and a Le Parisien piece, which between them source pretty well everything in the bio, and I've taken down your template. Let me know if you have any fresh concerns. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

Thanks for fixing the spouse information in the sidebar.
Ulmanor (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Wali Karzai

Hi. I wanna move the page to Ahmad Wali Karzai but you protected the option. Where can I make a request to change the page? In the Afghanistan region (and South Asia) it's commonly spelled as Ahmad. Like the founder of Afghanistan Ahmad Shah Durrani or Afghan freedom fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud and Ali Ahmad Jalali. The official Afghan government documents use "Ahmad Wali Karzai" [2] and so does BBC News as well as many others. I deal with Afghanistan and I haven't heard anyone with the name Ahmed. Thanks.--AlimNaz (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never been an administrator and hence I have never been able to apply protection to any article, nor can I move a move-protected article. Look through the page history if you want to find out who protected it. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that message was intended for HJ Mitchell.--AlimNaz (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare

Regarding the death template - the subject has been dead three days - please see the comments and the third opinion on the talkpage thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Three days is very recent; the article is frequently edited by many editors; the cause of death is unknown. I will reply on the talk page later today. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments on article talk pages

The guidelines are very clear on editing other contributor's comments on talk pages WP:TP states "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Please desist from copy editing comments. Span (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Norwegian murderers of children

Category:Norwegian murderers of children, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Cerejota (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

US vs. United States

Hi. Is there a policy which advises abbreviating United States to US? I always prefer to write it as United States as it just seems kind of pointless to abbreviate it. Thanks. Gran² 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Truly extraordinary speech by fearless West Indian woman in face of Hackney rioters

Thanks for adding the WP:LDN tag. I've replaced the talkheader because I think it could be needed. --Trevj (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes 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/Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's siblings

I do not believe they are "basic info". In some biographical articles, I had tried to include them. Instead, more established editors had pointed out, "The family members birth years should not be included. The siblings are not notable in their own rights. If this is to be found in other articles (as you noted [now removed]), they need to be removed as well." Even if they are famous, they tend to have articles of their own. See Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, and a lot of others. ★Dasani★ 05:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They are stated in some articles, but not others. I don't know if there is a guideline regarding this matter; if there is, please direct me to it. Her sister is notable, but her brother's article is now a redirect. My reasoning for including the birth years of siblings is that many readers of a biography will want to know that info, and it is relevant to the subject's life. Birth order can make a significant difference to a person's position in a family which is why I feel it relevant enough to state the years. In this case, it is interesting that Pippa is younger than Kate, but I think she looks older. However, if the consensus is for the years not to be included in this article, I won't reinstate them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(It's Dasani, I'm just too lazy to log in.)

Whether there is a consensus, I doubt it. I do, however, notice that most featured and good articles do not include birthyears of the family members. In the case that birth order is important, it is clearly written, "She is the only child of ___ and ___" or "He was the youngest of three children". Then they would list the sibling(s)' names, if there are any. It doesn't mean it is absolutely necessary to include every mundane detail about them. On Katie Holmes article, it used to list her sister's occupations, married names, and birthyears. Everything was removed to respect privacy and relevancy of her as the subject matter. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Greg Miskiw for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greg Miskiw 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/Greg Miskiw 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jane Walker (journalist)

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Jane Walker (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim Michael. I've declined the speedy deletion here, and I've added one additional reference. If you have some other citations you could add, and/or if you could expand the article to establish the significance of this journalist that would be great. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jane Walker (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane Walker (journalist) 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/Jane Walker (journalist) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AfDs

Just wanted to inform you that the article Murder of Angelika Kluk that you contributed to is up for AfD,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, please take a look on the AfD for 2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Troy Davis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never vandalised anything. I removed a redirect to the wrong article. Your subsequent redirection may be better, but my edit was certainly not vandalism. Jim Michael (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You may consider that the redirect was to the wrong article, but that did not justify blanking the page. PatGallacher (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At worst, I have made a minor error in good faith. I did not vandalise, so your warning was wrong. I did not blank good content, I blanked a wrong redirect. It is highly unlikely that anyone would type Talk:Troy Davis to look for the article on a little-known football player. Threatening to block me because of one edit you disagree with, when I have made thousands of productive edits, is puzzling. We are both here to improve this encyclopedia; there is no need for any hostility. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I'd noticed your name in the UBS history a few times (echoes a Forbes editor, though I feel he didn't go by Jim), then tracked you down as the very editor who'd linked the "rogue" trader's name in the UBS article to the article in the trader's name. I had only with some trepidation, at my first reading of it, added his name and a bit to the UBS article, some hours before, hadn't at that time (or up until today) seen that there was an article in the individual's name. So, first, thanks to you for making the link.

But I also came here, in a moment of calm, to make a suggestion, namely, that you to "get the red out" of your name, and out of all those pages on which it appears such as the UBS history page linked to above. If you're so inclined. Just a click on the red "User page" tab at the top of this page, you put whatever you'd like on the page, save it, done (as I recall it). No big deal. Either way. If you like the red, so be it. Coming here, I've seen a good number of references to "deletion" just above on this talk page; so you seem to be no stranger to the rough-n-tumble of Wiki editing; which doesn't exactly coincide with my moment of calm. Do I even want to get involved? has crossed my mind. But I've concluded, Why not? Right? All in good spirit, I trust you'll recognize. Cheers, and thanks for your good work. Pleased to make your acquaintance. ... Back to the salt mines. ;) Swliv (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aw, gee. ... I have to admit I was disappointed. ... But "no big deal", right? Right. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Big Brother 2011 (UK)

I was glad to see that you put back the refernece to Tom's declared sexuality. A lot of the personal details have been removed due to an edit war. I hope this remains in place as it is a key part of his identity in the house.86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 2011 housemates (UK)

Hi Jim,

When I removed the material earlier per WP:BOLD I did leave a section on the Talk Page [3] providing policy based justification. If you think I'm in error, the usual approach would be to discuss the need for the content on the talk page. As you will see from the subsequent section on the TP, there are greater concerns about the legitimacy of all but Tom's entry so any input you can provide on either issue, as a regular contributor, would be appreciated. Cheers. Leaky Caldron 16:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reinstate all that you removed, only the info about this week's nominations. The article needs more refs and more info. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that's all I had removed, but I've replied on the TP anyway. Leaky Caldron 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

This treat if for your tireless contributions and great work on a huge variety of articles around WP. Always nice to see your username pop up on my watchlist! Dawnseeker2000 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Big Brother 2011 (UK)

Care to comment? [4]

Leaky Caldron 11:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of April Fabb

Hi, Just noticed your contribution to The Disappearance of April Fabb page, regarding the provision of a photo of April. There are several good images on the "Google Images" site, although I am not sure who owns the copyright. Having said that, the pic was used extensively at the time of April's disappearance and appears to be a school photo. I trust you know how to get the pic on the page? With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about adding photos. If you put the details on the talk page, an editor who knows how to will add it to the infobox if it is suitable. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Brown Babies

Hi, Jim! About your additon at "Brown Babies" - Do you have a reference for it? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term in the UK in the 1940s has been mentioned on television documentaries, including Mixed Britannia, which was shown on BBC Two this autumn. Jim Michael (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

archive templates

Hello Jim, If you would, please don't flush the double brackets which end the archive bot setup to the same line as you did in this edit. The instructions are explicit on this that they must be on their own separate line. Otherwise, the effect is that it messes up the target for the bot as it did here and it is sent to never-never land and isn't really archived. Notice that the double brackets were considered part of the archive link in the edit summary.

If you have done this elsewhere then it needs to be corrected and the talk pages with their respective archive pages need to be examined to see if archiving was fouled up and corrected if so. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:2011 Liège attack, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The comment I removed was unconstructive and sarcastic. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. That comment should not have been added, so I was right in removing it. It is not against the rules to remove unconstructive comments. A sarcastic comment which has nothing to do with improving the article could be considered to be trolling, hence it should be removed. Jim Michael (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not against the rules, but it's also not in the rules. Deleting someone's comment can be a very controversial matter; in the future it may be best to put a little comment explaining why, such as <small>Message deleted for REASON by ~~~~</small> in place of the deleted message. A message may be sarcastic but the user may have felt it should be there, so you may have irritated someone by deleting it, and removing it doesn't really add to the conversation. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 16:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Donald Neilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heywood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited British dark comedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page League of Gentlemen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bank Job

I fixed the hatnote using the {{About}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2012 dates of birth

I notice you removed the IMDb citation for Michael Madsen's DOB. The reason I added the citation was to show that his DOB was widely available in the public arena. To meet the requirements of WP:BLP any poorly sourced sensitive information should be removed immediately. Do you think you should also remove the DOB info for the other three housemates, which are completely uncited? Madsen is a very well known public celeb so I could add any number of other citations for Madsen's DOB (for example BBSpy). Sionk (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Each DoB should be backed by a reliable source. IMDb is considered reliable for film and TV appearances, but not for biographical info; hence it should not be used to support a date of birth for anyone. The talk page of the BB 2012 UK article is a better place to discuss this issue, because the other contributors are a lot more likely to see it there. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already a thread on the talk page. My argument here is that you could have easily chosen one of a number of other available citations for Madsen's DOB if you were unhappy with IMDb. Removing the existing source is unhelpful. Sionk (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Amanda Holden (writer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Holden (writer) 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/Amanda Holden (writer) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Murder of Claire Tiltman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Murder of Claire Tiltman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited When Paddy Met Sally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Commons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Jane McDonald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Cruise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Celebrity Five Go To... (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Redmond

Helen Mirren (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sadistic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Gulf Keystone Petroleum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Erbil

Janis McGavin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balls of Steel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Gemma McCluskie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Antoni Imiela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Forest Hill

The Bank Job (game show) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Martin Kemp

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Secrets and Words references

Jim,

I added the references tag to this page because there are no references. I believe you are confusing the "external links" section with a references section. I would recommend checking out instructional page. Thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise that an article is considered unreferenced if it has external links which support the information in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Secrets and Words (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phil Davis

Stephen Daldry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian MacNeil

The Syndicate (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Matthew Lewis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Derek article

Hi there. I see you recently created an article for this TV show. However, someone else created an article for the same show. Perhaps you two could collaborate and figure out which page should be kept.

• Derek (Pilot) (created by User:Nbdelboy (talk page)
• Derek (TV pilot episode) (created by User:Jim Michael (talk page)

Good luck! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Derek (TV pilot episode), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vulnerable and Inhibition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT black British people

Category:LGBT black British people, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Tim! (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:British male comedians

Category:British male comedians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. KarlB (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Australian male comedians

Category:Australian male comedians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. KarlB (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The 70s (TV series)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The 70s (TV series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a history documentary currently being shown during prime-time on BBC Two. It is notable and I disagree that it met the A3 criteria when the notice was placed on it. I have expanded it today so that it certainly does not meet the criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The 70s (TV series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The 70s (TV series) 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/The 70s (TV series) 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 template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Barry George

If you are going to argue about his mental state would you please do it on the talk page rather the through edit summaries. Thank you. Britmax (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries (and your habit of not leaving them)

Hello, please read this page/section about edit summaries, I noticed that you made a major edit to the Rochdale sex-trafficking article and didn't leave an ES. Not leaving ES flags your edits as suspicious and is often a sign of vandalism and/or trying to slip in non-NPOV material. I also looked at your contributions and noticed that you rarely leave ES, it would be collegial and courteous to your fellow editors to summarize your edits in future, thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I have broken a rule. A high proportion of all edits (perhaps most) on Wikipedia do not have edit summaries. I was not aware that it is considered bad practise to not write an ES. I tend to only use them when my I believe the edit in question is likely to be disputed or misunderstood. As the vast majority of my edits do not fit those criteria, I do not use an ES on most occasions. I will try to improve now that I know my lack of them could be misperceived in a negative way. Jim Michael (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and taking this the way it was intended, as an editor who watchlists a lot of pages that are subject to pointless vandalism or POV pushing (video games articles, music festivals/artists), a blank edit summary sets the alarm bells ringing, especially when there is a big +/- count. You might find this page useful, Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference as a guide to abbreviations you can use to summarize, and, no, don't worry you haven't broken any rule, it's just better to use edit summaries. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim. It would be appreciated if you did. All the edits that I have seen you make have been exemplary, but the fact that your blank User page gives you a red link name means that other editors may have to check more often. Hey, you could maybe even add some detail to your User page? (or even childish rubbish like me!) Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim. It really would be a help if you could provide an edit summary, particularly for any top level "non-section" edits, like those made to the info box. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP and BDP

I can't let you go on misunderstanding this. "Contentious or questionable material that affects living persons or recently deceased persons should be removed promptly." from WP:BDP, I have linked it a few times now. Doesn't it make sense that, out of respect, we don't just suddenly relax the BLP requirement the moment someone stops breathing? --John (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've not been disrespectful. The BLP rules only apply to living people. I don't see that it is contentious to state that a person whose parents were Jewish was himself Jewish. There are no implications for Vidal Sassoon's living family members to state that he was Jewish, hence BDP guidance is not being broken. The Telegraph is a reliable source. BLPCAT does not say its scope includes dead people, so we don't need self-identification. In any case, Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion and ethinicity does not need self-identification even when the subject is alive. Jim Michael (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you interpret "Contentious or questionable material that affects living persons or recently deceased persons should be removed promptly." then? --John (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be contentious or questionable when it is reliably sourced in the article. It does not adversely affect his living famiy members to state that he was Jewish. Even if Sassoon never followed Judaism, he didn't disavow his Jewish ethnic identity. Jim Michael (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Line breaks

Please do not change <br /> to other forms that render invalid XHTML. See Help:Wiki markup#Line breaks. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Carr

Hi. Per BLP I have removed the change in birthplace on the Jimmy Carr article as the reference provided came up 404 nf. If there is a verifiable reliable source which shows the birthplace, it can be added back. Thanks -- Taroaldo (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The ref works for me, which is why I've reinstated it. YouTube is not usually used as a reference, and the birth index is a more reliable source than him. It is not unusual for entertainers to say things about themselves that are not true. I'm not denying Carr his Irish identity through his parents, but he was born in London. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The ref is now working for me too. Taroaldo (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Gordon Ramsay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspiration

Guy Ritchie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hatfield

Ray Wyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pioneer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Murder ballads

Do not add articles to this category unless verifiable sources in the article indicate it is relevant. Murder ballads have been well documented for decades, and not ever song about murder is a murder ballad. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that every song about murder is a murder ballad. However, Delilah (Tom Jones song) is a murder ballad and it is relevant. It clearly fits the criteria of the article. What makes you think it isn't a murder ballad? Any conversation about this should be on the talk page of the song, not here. Jim Michael (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secret Eaters

The article Secret Eaters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources.

While all 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Best Boys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Langford, Foreman, Vendetta, Impulsive and Cracker (TV series)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of films featuring mental illness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Krays

Mental illness in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Black Balloon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Griselda Blanco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Italian police said Restivo may have killed Oki

The page on the external link says "Danilo Restivo settled in Bournemouth in March 2002 having moved there from Italy. His presence was notified to Dorset police by a telex from the Italian police on 29th August 2002, warning that Restivo was a "grave danger to women" and advising that "he should be investigated for the Oki murder". Dorset police replied to their Italian counterparts in September 2002 informing them that they need not worry about Restivo, as they had apprehended Benguit." Do you know of any other source (such as an Italian newspaper or news report) that can be used as a ref for the above assertion? Overagainst (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Camargo Barbosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colombians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bigga than Ben, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dirty Pretty Things (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Joubert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Brian Jared Smart

Why did you remove the cat for American fraudsters again, he qualifies unconditionally with the others that are listed in that catagory, so why did you remove it?--WPPilot 04:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Because he is in Category:American people convicted of fraud, which is a subcategory of it. We don't put someone in a broader category when they qualify for a subcat of it. Jim Michael (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosemary Leonard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRCOG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Continental Railway Journeys

The article Great Continental Railway Journeys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable movie

While all 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. FrankDev (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a movie, it's a television series. It is notable, it was shown on prime-time BBC and presented by Michael Portillo.

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Life Without Dick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics of borderline personality disorder

Hi there!

I saw that you requested citations for the characteristics of BPD listed in the "Notable Persons with comorbid diagnoses" section, and I wanted to let you know that I just clarified that the source from the end of that sentence applies to each characteristic in that sentence. The source is from pages 10-11 of Linehan's treatment manual for borderline personality disorder, which is the foundational source on BPD and one of the main references for this article. I noticed in your edit summary that you wrote that BPD individuals are "typically confrontational, angry and argumentative," and I was wondering, what is your source for that information? The reason I ask is just curiosity, as I have not found most BPD individuals with whom I have worked to exhibit any of those characteristics except when they are under duress, and I'm sure you'll agree that most people with or without BPD are often confrontational, angry, and argumentative when distressed.

All the best, Firecatalta (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your work on the BPD article is appreciated.

Points 2 and 8 of the DSM criteria as well as points 2 and 3 of the ICD criteria state what I'm saying. Most borderlines are emotionally distressed for a high proportion of the time, hence to say they are not as I described when not distressed is not very relevant. Linehan is biased in favour of borderlines, because she is one; she is also a long way from being a typical borderline, for example she is conscientious. Borderlines typically overreact and it is not unusual for them to explode in response to things that most people would be able to handle without significant difficulty. Of course, most borderlines have suffered significantly more victimisation and deprivation than most people have experienced. They require a great deal of being looked after and hate being alone. However, throwing things at the walls because her partner is stuck in a traffic jam a few minutes after he is usually home is not a normal reason to be distressed. That is an example of a borderline's abnormal, destructive reaction to incorrectly feeling abandoned. Jim Michael (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the BPD article as well! It's wonderful having such dedicated people working on this project.

I definitely see your point – aggression certainly is one of the diagnostic criteria for BPD, and for good reason! As you’ve mentioned, borderline individuals do seem to experience distress more often than the average Joe, and they experience it more deeply, too. So you’re right, this would mean that many BPD individuals will find themselves in a state of distress more often than usual, and you’re definitely right that we ought to consider the full picture of their behavior, not just when they’re not distressed. The question though is whether their experiences of distress most often lead to aggression.

There are four main emotions underlying distress: fear, anger, shame, and sadness. Borderline individuals experience fear, shame, and sadness just as often and deeply as they experience anger, and so when we say that they are in distress, they might be feeling any of these four negative emotions. So saying that people with BPD are more often in distress does not necessarily mean that they are more often angry. Just as often as they feel angry, they feel deep fear, sadness, and shame. And when they are feeling anger, different borderline individuals respond in a variety of ways. Zanarini, who is another major researcher in this field and not a borderline (at least as far as we know), has done research demonstrating that one of the most common responses to anger in people with BPD is non-suicidal self-injury, such as cutting themselves. So even though borderlines may feel anger more strongly and more often than their non-borderline counterparts, many with BPD express it by harming themselves, not through displays of aggression to others.

Speaking of aggression, the criteria of unstable interpersonal relationships and inappropriate aggression are 2 criteria out of 9. One of the interesting aspects of BPD is that since only 5 of the 9 criteria are required for diagnosis, there are actually 126 different combinations of symptoms that all merit a diagnosis of BPD. It’s even possible for two individuals to both be diagnosed with BPD, yet have only one symptom in common. For instance, one person could have diagnostic criteria 1-5, while another could have diagnostic criteria 5-9, yet both would be given the same diagnosis.

The reason for this great variability is that while the causal features of BPD are the same – including differences in brain structure and traumatic experiences – people respond in different ways. So all these people are given the same diagnosis in recognition of the shared cause of their issues, but their issues may or may not include interpersonal difficulties or aggression. And in fact, many with BPD who experience interpersonal difficulties do not experience them because of aggression. Many have trouble in their relationships with friends and families due to the depth with which they feel sadness over “small” events. Just like people with clinical depression struggle with loved ones who judge them as overreacting to sadness, Borderline individuals are often judged the same way in relation to their intense sadness, intense fear, and intense shame. This can undermine relationships just as much as aggression. Borderlines also often have interpersonal difficulties because friends and family members are frightened by their self-harming behaviors, such as cutting or suicide attempts – yet these are not aggressive to others.

I guess what I’m saying is that on the one hand, the example you’ve given is definitely an example of BPD behavior, no doubt about it. On the other hand, there is an incredible variety of people who receive this diagnosis. Aggression is just one of 9 possible symptoms, and interpersonal difficulties can be caused by many factors other than aggression. Based on the example you gave, it sounds like you may have had some painful experiences with a borderline individual. If that’s the case, I certainly don’t want to discount that – borderline individuals often do cause a great deal of pain, sadness, stress, and anger in those who love them and interact with them. At the same time, I would caution against considering the behavior of any one individual as being typical of borderline individuals as a whole. As you say, Linehan is atypical, but not in the way you seem to have meant. Although she is certainly highly functioning now, Linehan's BPD was so severe that doctors originally thought she was schizophrenic. Yet even someone who was on the most extreme end of the BPD spectrum ultimately overcame her symptoms and invented a treatment that has helped countless others to do so as well. And the research shows that with treatment and the passing of time, the majority of people with BPD improve and gain remission from their symptoms.

Uh oh, I see that I have written you an essay! Sorry for going on at such length. I look forward to your reply, and I hope you have a great night! Firecatalta (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Borderlines suffer a great deal more than most people do and I have compassion for what they are going through. However, I find them scary and confusing; I admire that you are able to cope with them, as I can't. Their extreme feelings and dysfunctional behaviour impact severely on themselves, people in their lives and society in general. Most borderlines self-harm and as well as their self-destructiveness, perpetrating vandalism, violence and stalking are multiple times more common in borderlines than in the general population - even though many borderlines are not violent. The large majority of prison inmates have personality disorders and the rate of BPD among them is much higher than it is in the general population. It is almost certainly the third most common PD among prisoners (after antisocial and sadistic).

I respect Linehan and admire her contribution to psychology as well as her own recovery/remission from BPD. I maintain that she is unusual for a borderline in being highly educated and conscientious. Most borderlines are not controlled, self-disciplined, long-term planners with constructive life goals like she is. Most have addictions and have dysfunctional lives and relationships, often involving imprisonment, frequent hospitalisation, interpersonal conflict and emotional crisis. They often choose bad partners, and even when they choose someone nice, in many cases they put them through hell (intentionally or unintentionally). I cannot think of any academics other than her who have BPD - nor any politicians or self-made millionaire businesspeople. The vast majority of the borderlines who are in the public eye are violent criminals and/or famous entertainers - the borderlines listed on the BPD article illustrate my point. Borderlines need a lot of looking after and very few have successful or even normal lives - although some achieve this if they recover or go into remission. This isn't the case with all personality disordered people - most people who have schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive PDs are successful. To say that borderlines have a passive way of dealing with interpersonal conflict, as Linehan says, is far from being the case with most borderlines - that is how people with dependent personality disorder are in this respect. Passive is not something I think can be part of any cluster B person, though many borderlines continue to live with their violent partners because they cannot bear being alone and they have unintentionally repelled their families and friends due to their (self-)destructive behaviour, emotional dysregulation, self-harm and being very needy. Cluster Bs are active people who often go to extremes to get what they want. Most borderlines cause and/or exacerbate interpersonal conflict rather that passively solve it. A high proportion of borderlines are the victims and/or perpetrators of domestic violence for all or a high proportion of their lives. Having one's life dominated by addiction and frequently lashing out at people around them, as Amy Winehouse did, or having many dysfunctional, violent, destructive intimate relationships and five pregnancies by four men by the age of 28 like Ruth Ellis did are two examples of high profile (undiagnosed) cases of the devastation caused by BPD. Diagnosed personality disordered Sandra Clinch, who first became pregnant at 15 and has five children by three men, frequently hit her children and stabbed her second husband in the chest with a carving knife, which he was lucky to survive. She stabbed her mild-mannered fourth husband to death with a pair of scissors during a petty argument. The way she has lived her life - irresponsible, with a furious temper and extreme mood swings, along with the description given by her eldest child, that she frequently has violent explosions but is calm and nice later the same day, makes it sound like she's a borderline. Media coverage of her case in Cornwall portrays her as not motivated by predation or enjoying victimising, which makes ASPD and sadistic PD less likely, both of which in any case are nowhere near as common in women as BPD is. She appears to regret killing her husband. In comparison, antisocials never regret the victimisation they perpetrate, although some may fake remorse to gain a lenient sentence. Antisocials want to victimise, they dedicate their lives to targeting the vulnerable and many are proud of the fear, pain and destruction they cause.

I take your point that there is substantial variation between borderlines depending on which criteria they have, but it is untrue to say that they may only have one characteristic in common. All of them fulfil the general personality disorder criteria, as well as having a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image and affects as well as marked impulsivity. Hence they all have a lot in common, even though in some cases two borderlines may share only one of features 1 to 9. Jim Michael (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear that; the behaviors typical of BPD can be frightening indeed, no doubt about it. I think the reason I can cope with the frightening and frustrating aspects of this disorder is that I have also found most borderlines I’ve met to be so considerate, nurturing, and caring. Sounds strange, I know, especially if what you see in the media is the reports of borderlines who are violent. News networks are not interested in reporting about successful, average borderlines. It’s not sensational, it doesn’t get the high ratings. Viewers aren’t interested in watching people quietly overcome their illness: they like to watch angry people who are out of control. Witness the popularity of reality TV, especially shows like Jersey Shore. And since borderlines are almost exclusively portrayed in the media as angry and violent, those borderlines who are successful don’t go public about it, for fear of being thought of that way. In fact, even Marsha Linehan only went public a year and a half ago, in 2011.

But ironically, the research shows that given the right treatment and the passing of time, over 50% of borderlines become free of all symptoms, and 86% achieve full remission from most of them. That is the other reason I keep going in this line of work: once borderline individuals heal from the immense suffering that causes the frightening and frustrating parts, the extraordinarily considerate and affectionate parts of their personalities remain. It’s magnificent to see, and I hope you’ll get a chance to see it one day too. Given the turbulence that is so often prevalent at the beginning though, I can absolutely understand why that might be difficult to imagine if you haven’t seen it for yourself. This disorder is no cakewalk, that’s for sure. But the personal transformation that happens as people overcome it, which the vast majority do now that we know the right treatments, is just incredible.

Regarding the diagnosis, the general criteria for personality disorders just say that these characteristics must be disruptive to the person’s life, persist over time, start in young adulthood, and not due to another disorder. The general criteria for personality disorders are what distinguish axis II disorders from axis I disorders, not what distinguish borderline individuals from non-borderlines. Also, what the DSM-IV-TR is saying in its diagnostic criteria is that the instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, affect, and impulsivity are present “as indicated by five (or more) of the following.” That doesn’t mean that all of these categories of behaviors have to be exhibited by someone in order for them to receive the diagnosis. Rather, that means that these are the categories to look for in people with BPD, who may exhibit some of these categories of behavior, “as indicated” by examining whether BPD individuals have 5 of the 9 criteria. So when a clinician is diagnosing someone, they keep an eye out for these patterns, but they diagnose based just on the symptoms that demonstrate those patterns. So you sometimes do end up with different people receiving the diagnosis who only overlap with one symptom. Does that make sense?

In any case, I really appreciate your dedication to this subject and the article. It’s not an easy task by any means, especially since the topic can be so painful and emotional. I greatly respect your willingness to engage in this dialogue, and I’m so glad the BPD project has you on board! Firecatalta (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the worst cases are those that gain media coverage, but it is also the case that despite the fact that some borderlines have a significant amount of good in them, the large majority have very little conscientiousness. The prevalence of BPD is most often stated as 2%, yet I cannot think of one politician or successful businessperson who might have it, and Linehan is the only academic I've heard of that has it and the only notable person I can think of whom has BPD and is neither a violent criminal nor a professional entertainer. It is frustrating to see borderlines destroy themselves through their addictions and reckless, impulsive behaviour. Persuading them to kick their habits, stop self-harming, use contraception and look after themselves. To see them mentally unable to separate from their abusive partners because they can't bear being alone, and they cannot live with their families because their children have been taken away from them by social services and the rest of their family either have never cared about them, or are unable/unwilling to cope with their behaviour. Borderlines are often around destructive people and their friends/aquaintances tend to be unreliable and erratic. For many borderlines, health workers are essential to their lives, part of the reason they very frequently seek medical help - more people are hospitalized for BPD than for all the other PDs put together They have the highest rate of self-harm, suicide and attempted suicide of all PDs. They need a great deal of being looked after. Seeing the wounds on their arms from hundreds of self-harming incidents makes me almost be able to feel the psychological torment that they endure. I disagree with your stated interpretation of the BPD criteria. I believe that in order for someone to have BPD they must habitually have unstable interpersonal relationships and self-image and affects as well as marked impulsivity - in addition to having at least five of the nine features and the general personality disorder criteria. I didn't say that the general personality are specific to BPD - having them is a criteria for having any PD. You have missed out one of the general PD criteria, which is important - the person must exhibit the disharmonious behaviour in multiple settings. For example, if someone is that way only at work, they don't have a PD - they're in the wrong job. If someone is like that only with their partner, they don't have a PD - they're with the wrong person.

The personality disorder articles need a lot of improvement, and it's good to see them being worked on by someone who has interacted with them in person. The vast majority of borderlines also have other mental disorders. The article lists comorbidity for many Axis I disorders, but not for other PDs. BPD is comorbid with at least four other PDs: antisocial, histrionic, narcissistic and dependent. It would be interesting to know the prevalence of each of those comorbidities. Jim Michael (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying about the diagnosis bit. I can understand that people have different views of what makes a diagnosis, and I appreciate that you explained where you're coming from. I'm curious though, you keep mentioning that borderlines have little conscientiousness, but I'm not sure what you mean by that -- would you mind elaborating a bit? I want to make sure I fully understand where you're coming from while thinking about it some more.

Also, the latest study (a pretty large one, too) is that BPD has a prevalence of 5.9% (the epidemiology section has been updated with this), which makes them more common than we might realize, which is a point in favor of your very valid question -- where are all the successful and notable borderlines? To that I would say, where are all the successful and notable people? What are you looking for in a "successful" or "famous" person? Like the rest of us, most of the borderlines with whom I have interacted actually do hold down full-time jobs quite successfully. They're not famous, but all of them (so far) have graduated from college, and a few (among those I know personally) from colleges that are considered quite prestigious. The thing is, again, since there is that stigma that borderlines are violent and destructive, as these individuals heal, they do not plan on "coming out" any time soon, so as not to hurt their successful careers. Can you imagine a successful politician or businessman who would come forward to declare that he or she has depression, let alone BPD, during the course of their career? Their opponents would eat them alive. It would be child's play for their opponents to claim that they were too "unstable" to run for public office, or to compete in the business world, even after they had fully recovered. However, if you're interested, there are two life coaches of whom I am aware who suffered from BPD, have recovered, and are now successful in their fields. Their names are Teresa Lynn and Tami Green, and here are their websites in case you are interested in seeing a few examples of successful and "out" borderline individuals:

http://borderlinepersonalitydisorderinfo.com/?source=hfbpd

www.borderlinepersonalitysupport.com

One thing I respect the most about these individuals is that they don't gloss over their destructive pasts; they recognize the pain they have caused others (see Tami Green's testimony to congress about the pain of losing her children), and they still have healed and become what I would consider to be successful professionals. Again, I agree with you: this disorder can be incredibly painful and frightening. But the beginning of the disorder, when those with BPD are unaware of the pain they are experiencing and the severity of its impact on others, is so very different from the end of the disorder, when those with BPD become successful, nurturing, and well-adjusted.

And you're right, there is so much work to be done on these articles! Goodness we have our work cut out for us. Firecatalta (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that your experience with borderlines is not typical. Your patients seem to be unusually high-functioning and free of ASPD - surprising for borderlines. Low conscientiousness is typically prominent in borderlines, a trait that is very problematic for society and which it shares with ASPD. BPD and ASPD are comorbid and some borderlines are wrongly considered antisocials and vice-versa. Personality disordered people often at the extremes of one or more of the big five personality traits. Borderlines typically score very low on conscientiousness and agreeableness, but very high on neuroticism. Borderlines often have chaotic, (self-)destructive lifestyles centred on their addictions, dysfunctional love-hate relationships with frequent alternating between idealisation and devaluation. A high proportion don't use contraception and have many preganancies by ASPD/BPD men. It is very common for the children to be neglected/abused by the mother and her long list of appallingly bad partners, and subsequently taken into care. Borderlines are highly impulsive and typically lack planning, organisation and constructive life-goals - traits it shares with ASPD. Most have underclass lives of desperation. They tend not to be academic. Even those who are above-average intelligence will have any studies or career severely disrupted and often ended by their frequent hospitalisations and furious conflicts with people around them. Trying to encourage a borderline away from her addictions, self-harm and violent ASPD/BPD partner whilst directing her to use contraception so she doesn't produce yet another damaged child who will be taken away by social services is a very difficult task. Even if a borderline wants a relationship/friendship with a regular person, she would find it very difficult because few people could cope with the demands of looking after a borderline, as well as her unreliability, along with very soon and often being told "I love you, you're perfect", then minutes/hours later being told "I hate you, you're a useless idiot!" Borderlines need a lot of care, but through their confusing, scary and distressing behavior, they drive away people who try to help them.

The most common figure given for BPD occurrence is 2%, although estimates vary greatly. It is difficult to know how common it is due to the fact that many sufferers are undiagnosed and the prevalence varies greatly by geographical location - more common in deprived areas. It is underdiagnosed and many borderlines are aware that they are mentally ill but not that they have BPD, though I think 5.9% is an overestimate. In most of the world, people other than those who work with the mentally ill have little knowledge of PDs. Whilst no high-profile celebrity has stated that they have a PD, there are many famous people who clearly have HPD and/or NPD. HPD is more common among entertainers than among the general population. NPD is very common in high positions in society, particularly in finance. Very few of them are in danger of losing their positions due their PDs. No studio said "we don't want Marilyn Monroe to star in our films because she has HPD". No financial company said "we don't want to employ/promote this trader because he has NPD". In both cases, the PD in question would have been a net advantage. The same can't be said for BPD; there are far fewer notable people with it, and the large majority of the borderlines in the public eye are violent criminals and/or entertainers. Your suggestion that there are high-ranking politicians and CEOs of major companies who have BPD, and keep it is secret, seems unlikely to be true - I cannot think of one possible case. It is one of the more obvious mental disorders - they are so disharmonious and dysfunctional that even if one of them had the conscientiousness required to become a politician or CEO, they would be discovered from the BPD hallmarks: strange appearance, extreme emotions, cuts/burns, drug abuse, many furious verbal and perhaps physical fights, frequent hospitalisations. It would be almost impossible to hide those kind of things in the public eye. Keith Moon and Amy Winehouse's reckless behaviour, including violence and drug abuse, was tolerated and perhaps promoted as edgy. Such behavior would not be tolerated in politics or business. They would never have been able to run businesses or stand for public office. Try picturing Winehouse having tried to stand as an MP! Punching/slapping photographers and members of the public in the face because she couldn't control her temper would certainly not have been accepted and would not have been able to be kept secret. If Moon and Winehouse had not had the good fortune to become rich as musicians, they would have not have been able to be successful at anything else, leaving them to scrape by in poverty, on welfare benefits (mostly spent on their addictions), in and out of prison. Their wealth from music protected them from that. Jim Michael (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing; I appreciate your taking the time to help fill me in on where you're coming from. I'm still wondering, though, how do you know that my experience with borderlines is atypical, and that yours is not atypical? I have worked with a great number of people diagnosed with BPD, and while I have seen behaviors that are undoubtedly destructive, I have also seen nearly all of them heal and go on to live happy and successful lives, and the research on this subject backs me up (for instance, see the relevant section of the wiki article and its sources). Have you known many borderline individuals? If the source of your experience is primarily from one or two individuals and from what you see on TV, how do you know that your experience is typical? It doesn't surprise me that you can't think of a possible case of a successful businessman or politician who keeps BPD a secret, because your attitudes toward the people who have this illness seem to be founded primarily in your own personal speculation, and your personal speculation appears to be that they are flamboyantly crazy people. Here is a short documentary of now-recovered people with the illness: although they struggled with enormous psychological difficulties, how many of these people fit the image you paint of them as having a "strange appearance" or being angry and out of control? -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 You keep saying that you don't know of anyone with BPD who healed and is successful, yet here I am telling you that I have worked with many, many patients with BPD who do just that, and that the statistics back me up that this is the norm, not the exception. You don't have to believe what I am telling you, I understand that you don't know me from Adam, but I'm struggling to understand: what does it mean to you that 86% of people ultimately recover from the majority of their symptoms, if it doesn't mean that the majority of people with BPD can go on to have meaningful and productive lives? Firecatalta (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to this study, which is the largest ever conducted to date (it involved face to face clinical interviews with over 34,000 individuals, whereas most studies interview a thousand at most), ASPD was only comorbid in 21% of patients with BPD (see table 3). Of every potential comorbid personality disorder, it had the second-lowest percentage, with the lowest percentage being Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. How can you then say that being free of ASPD is surprising for borderline individuals, when 80% of them are free of ASPD according to the most recent (2009) and most major study on the subject? Here's the link so you can see for yourself (the relevant statistics are outlined in table 3):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2676679/

Firecatalta (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow - and I just realized that I was giving you the number from the wrong column. The second column is the prevalence of the comorbid disorder among people with BPD; so the prevalence of people with BPD who have ASPD is even lower than 21% -- it is 13.7% ! That means that 86.3% of people with BPD are free of ASPD. That is the vast majority. Firecatalta (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's great that the BPD article is now receiving the improvements that it has needed since it was created. I admire your devotion to helping borderlines - it must be very difficult and whilst rewarding in some cases, heartbreaking in those who do not respond well and/or do not complete their treatment program. It must also be very difficult for you to listen to them telling you about the hell they've been through - most borderlines have been treated very badly since early childhood, partly explaining the way they are as adults. I'm pleased that there are tolerant, caring people like you in that very challenging field of mental health. The large majority of people, including me, could not do what you do. You've met more borderlines than I have and your personal knowledge of them is greater than mine. The percentage you give for those making a partial or full recovery does not take into account the proportion who relapse. In addition, the recovery/remission percentage is for borderlines who complete a course of treatment. Many borderlines do not do this, so the proportion of borderlines who permanently, fully recover is much lower than the figure you've given. As a mental health professional, you are dealing with clients who want and are undergoing regular treatment; hence you will see significant improvements in most of them. I've had a borderline tell me she loves me, then hours later viciously, degradingly insult me for no reason. On a separate occasion, she phoned me whilst drunk and crying, deeply despairing over a petty issue most people would deal with easily and quickly. I feel compassion for the severe victimisation she has been subjected to all her life by people I have never met. Despite her intelligence, the overpowering grip that BPD has on her and her lack of conscientiousness meant that I could not persuade her to use contraception, kick her addictions, stop slashing herself with knives or leave her violent partner. You won't so often see the hostile, out-of-control types who are more likely to not be in (regular) treatment or are receiving it in prison. You also may not see the relapsed patients years later when their BPD has regained a stranglehold over their lives. If the figure you've given is that about one in seven borderlines are also antisocials. That is a high comorbidity, considering that the prevalence of ASPD in the general population is most often stated as 2%. That makes ASPD seven times more common in borderlines than in the general population (14% compared to 2%). From how you've described the borderlines you've met, it appears that the ASPD prevalence in them is much lower than 14%. Also, the level of education you describe in them is not typical for borderlines, which is why few are successful. I don't dispute that some become successful, but the very frequent hospitalisations, self-harm, imprisonment, addictions and preganancies which feature promininently in a high proportion of borderlines prevent most of them from having normal, let alone successful, lives. Partially recovering or having a reduction in symptoms, then living in poverty, on welfare, in social housing and struggling to raise five disturbed children who have four different absent fathers is a world away from being self-sufficient, let alone successful. Jim Michael (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a great point there – it’s very true that the population of borderline individuals who seek treatment are a self-selecting group. And you’re right, it is crucial to note that those who do stick with treatment are the ones who experience the fullest healing. I am so, so sorry to hear of your painful experiences, and I can’t tell you how much I admire your willingness to engage with and examine this issue in light of the terrible sadness and frustration you have experienced. Your story is truly heartbreaking, and I'm so sorry that your loved one has been unable to get help. There is no doubt about it: borderline individuals can cause enormous pain in the hearts of those who love them, and to gloss over the turbulence and destructiveness of this disorder would be inaccurate. In a sense, it would even be unfair to those who struggle with it, as it would minimize the disastrous impact this has on their lives before they get help. I hope life brings you healing in that relationship, and again, I have so much respect for all you have gone through. Wishing you peace, happiness, and all the very best. Firecatalta (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicola Edgington

Hi Jim! I wanted to give you a quick heads up that I removed Nicola Edgington because her info was currently unsourced, and I couldn't find a source that definitively said whether she had schizophrenia, or BPD, or both. I did find a news article saying that her prosecution claimed she had BPD, while her defense claimed she had schizophrenia, but there was no discussion of what conclusion was ultimately decided upon. If you find a source that says what was decided on in the end, please feel free to put her back in, and I'll keep a lookout for sources too! Firecatalta (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The jury at her recent trial accepted the prosecution's BPD diagnosis. I'll find the source. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Real quick, the link you've added isn't working; I tried to fix it so that it goes to the news article, but I couldn't find the original URL. Would you mind handling that? Thanks again! Firecatalta (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satellite town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call!

Good call on the epidemiology section in borderline personality disorder -- the prevalence of any condition can be hard to pin down, and your recent edit really helps clarify that. It goes without saying, but thank you for all your hard work on this article! Firecatalta (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have been watching with interest and I think you have made some very good contributions there. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sins of Silence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New article

I have recently created the article Disappearance of Helen McCourt. The first disappearance case in the UK to be solved by DNA evidence.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Norgrove

Thanks for starting the talk page. I kind of got a bit side tracked with something else. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:NOTCENSORED Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled that you are talking to me as though I am a newcomer. I have been here for years and have made thousands of constructive edits. I rightly removed a bad-taste joke from the talk page of someone who died this morning. It was not a legitimate comment. Talk pages are only for coordinating improvements to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underbelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 18:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and JonBenét Ramsey

Can you move-protect these pages indefinitely? --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never been able to protect anything on Wikipedia, because I have never been an administrator. Jim Michael (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:American people convicted of rape

Category:American people convicted of rape, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of rape

Category:People convicted of rape, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding categories

Hey Jim, I would just like to let you know that for many of the articles to which you have recently added the Category:20th-century American criminals, there is often a subcategory of the newly created subcategory Category:20th-century executions of American people into which the articles should go.Hoops gza (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Discretion

Concerning the death of Rigby, yes, the newspapers have blurted out his personal details. Wikipedia is not selling news. It has a policy of treating the living with respect. Rigby's wife stated that she and her husband were looking forward to getting on with their family life, OK? Wife is the person with rights. Wife needs treating with discretion. Amandajm (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone. I was helping to clarify a comment on Talk:2013 Woolwich attack, especially regarding the partner confusion in regard to a man who had a (estranged) wife in England and a mistress in Afghanistan. Substantial info about the victim's personal life is usual in an article about a person's death - it is seriously lacking in 2013 Woolwich attack, which should be called Killing of Lee Rigby. I don't dispute that Rebecca is legally his widow regardless of how long they were separated for prior to his death. Jim Michael (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPS It's very easy to get accused of disrepectng all sorts of people at that article Talk Page at the moment. I myself was categorically told I had "crossed a line" by a third party editor for doing something I had no intention of. And I was propmtly marched off to ANI for expressing a personal opinion. I guess it's because it's all still a bit highly charged. And Amandajm also has a question to answer, it seems, about Christian translaters,. it seems. It think it's sometimes easy for edits, or the motivation behind edits, to be miscontsrued. We all need to calm down a bit, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disappearance of Georgia Williams

The article Disappearance of Georgia Williams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS

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. ...William 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You took down the prod because 'not eligible for speedy deletion'. It wasn't a speedy deletion but a Proposed deletion. If it was a speedy deletion, you violated WP:CSD which says a speedy deletion tag can't be taken down by the article's creator. As someone with over 8,000 edits to their credit, you should know all of this....William 19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for my incorrect edit summary. What I meant is that I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the case is not notable and believe it to be similar to Murder of Joanna Yeates and Murder of Sian O'Callaghan. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Georgia Williams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Georgia Williams 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/Disappearance of Georgia Williams 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. ...William 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disappearance of Georgia Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magistrates' Court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Minutiae?

Re Jeffrey Smart and category "disease related deaths in Italy". Perhaps I'm "shooting the messenger", but I can't help but wonder what possible value this category can add to the knowledge of humankind. However, I'm willing to be educated ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are similar types of category for different parts of the world. Deaths are typically categorised by cause and location in the world. For example, someone who died of emphysema in Paris whould be in the categories Deaths from emphysema and Disease-related deaths in France. Someone who died of stomach cancer in Tokyo would be in the cats Deaths from stomach cancer and Cancer deaths in Japan. That is how categorising dead people's biographies has been done on Wikipedia for years. I didn't create that system, but I agree with it. I don't see why you might think it irrelevant or trivial to Smart's bio that he died of a disease in Italy. Some large countries are subcategorised, such as: Category:Disease-related deaths in Australia by state or territory. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. I'm aware of these things. And I'm aware that it's a system not of your making. It's just that I don't see the point. Why is Wikipedia collecting this information? Who uses this information? How? Why? Yes, none of any of this is of your making - as I said: Perhaps I'm "shooting the messenger". But ... what's the point? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories link articles who have something in common. In this case he's categorised with other notable people who died of natural causes in Italy. Cause of death is relevant, as is the fact he died in Italy, rather than his native Australia. Jim Michael (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes sense. Now that you've pointed it out, it seems ... obvious. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive

By-the-way: You need to archive your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I've never known how to archive. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

May I help / suggest / advise / whatever? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to, you could give me simple instructions on how to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. There are (at least) several methods, and I don't know if or why any is better than any other, but here are the two simplest I know of. Method 1 involves "move". Method 2 involves cut and paste.

1 - Move

a) Move User talk:Jim Michael to User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1

b) Edit both pages.

c) Copy and paste from User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1 into User talk:Jim Michael the stuff you like to have on your talk page.

d) Save User talk:Jim Michael.

2 - Cut and paste

a) Edit User talk:Jim Michael; place "User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1" somewhere on the page; "Show preview"

b) Shift-click on the red link User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1 - you'll then have two pages open.

c) Cut from User talk:Jim Michael and paste it to User talk:Jim Michael/Archive 1.

d) Save both pages.

Hope that's helpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC) I tried and failed because I can't work out how to move text from one page to another. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to do it for you? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)