User talk:Ionmars10/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ionmars10. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Ionmars10! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For somehow managing to make 107 edits a DAY. And, despite having an 8 day old account, having a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Squeeps10 19:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Speedrun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celeste (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Video game characters introduced in 2019 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ionmars10,

I saw your comment on Category talk:Video game characters introduced in 2019. You are corrected, the empty categories are tagged and if they are still empty after a week, they are deleted. If they have pages/articles in them, the tag is removed and they stay. The thing about empty categories is that they can be recreated should there become a need for them. So, should there be some suitable articles for this particular category, feel free to recreate it. Of course, someone might challenge your additions but, that is the way of Wikipedia, for better or worse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Ionmars10 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for copyediting the three jacob collier album pages. Your contributions are appreciated. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ionmars10, UnnamedUser has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Grant Thomson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Since you've been a main author, I thought I'd let you know. VF9 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Mark Rober. I used a reliable source. (californiabirthindex.org) Andhw (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is done to protect the subject's privacy. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY for more info. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it requires rewrite? I'm not sure why you added it. I've reverted it for now, but once it becomes clear why I won't add it back. Thanks. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 12:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

NonsensicalSystem, I probably should've clarified that I was concerned about the last four paragraphs. Not only do they contain several grammatical errors, but phrases such as "pioneering", "timeless", "today's day and age", etc. definitely seem to fit into the various "words to watch" categories in the manual of style. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ionmars10 Ah, I see what you mean. I'll start fixing it up, feel free to add the template again if necessary. Thanks. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why neither of them are a reliable source? Just count the time out for yourself and you can see it's accurate. Arguing semantics is a joke at this point. Yeah you can count songs in other time signatures and have random syncopations all over the place, but it just seems strange to argue reliability against something that is mathematically correct. Going along with your reasoning for deleting my edits, literally no page on that wikipedia article would exist, because you can just fudge anything to your liking and claim it's syncopated. I get if you don't know anything about time signatures or music theory then sure it seems weird, but otherwise maybe do a bit a research or see for yourself before you pull the trigger like that. Also (and I have the score for Discipline), removing the Discipline portion seemed even stupider. If the odd time signature page was wrong because "wikipedia is not a reliable source", then shouldn't you be going after the source page, Discipline? How has that stayed intact, but a reference to it did not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidp (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Voidp, re "Sin": YouTube videos in most cases aren't reliable sources, particularly when it's not an official upload. First of all, we have to be concerned about whether the uploaded video infringes on the creator's copyright, and since this is an upload by a small unverified channel there's a pretty high chance that it does, so per policy we should avoid linking to it. It's also a self-published source by a seemingly random YouTube user (i.e. no real credentials relating to music), and even if it were reliable neither the video title nor the description makes any mention of time signatures. As for "just count the time out", that's original research: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. While I can see where you're coming from listening to the soundtrack myself, who's to say that it isn't actually supposed to be ⁹
₈, or ⁶
₈, or ³
₈? (none of which count as unusual time signatures for the purpose of the list in question) To find out for sure we would probably have to look somewhere such as the sheet music, an interview by a reliable source with someone directly involved in the music's creation, an analysis by someone widely regarded as an expert in music theory and analysis, etc.

re "Discipline": The reason why Wikipedia articles should almost never cite each other is that anyone can write one. Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity. There's no guarantee that someone else, let alone someone reputable, will be there to peer review the changes made, hence why hoax articles sometimes manage to slip through the cracks and remain undetected for several years. This includes hoax articles which try to sneak in a references section that looks legitimate, but actually consists of entries that are either fictitious or fail to verify the information. You're better off just taking a look at the sources yourself and judging their reliability.

If you have the official sheet music for "Discipline", however, and it explicitly notates the piece using those time signatures, then that would most likely be a valid source per WP:ABOUTSELF, and you'd be welcome to re-add it. Just make sure to add an explicit citation inside the article so that anyone else looking to verify the information themselves knows where to look. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Use_dmy_dates#Against_consensus --MGChecker (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I warned the user who created the article that by putting the article into WP:DAFT, he made it obvious that the article was vandalism. However hours later, [| he removed the warning from his talk page]. Was this thing sorted out earlier because otherwise this user is trying to hide vandalism from Wikipedia. Please tell me if it was. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

OcelotCreeper, well? Didn't you read the template at the top? It was clearly stated that page was humourous. Most of the articles there were vandalism with freaky titles which later got deleted. I don't think that my addition was any form of vandalism, and in fact it seemed that you were not assuming good faith while warning me. -- JavaHurricane 16:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane Did you also read this? Because if you did, then clearly you only added Youve been gnomed to the list because it was not deleted for G3 or G10. However, you sort of made Youve been gnomed a G3 by adding it to the list since you were the creator of the article. I apologize for any troubles I caused, but please do not add articles to WP:DAFT if you created them. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

OcelotCreeper, I did not create the article. It was created by another user for fun, and I found the article amusing to say the least. It wasn't deleted as G3 (I believe A1) if I am not mistaken. -- JavaHurricane 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok. You can never tell who created an articled if it is deleted (Well you can, but how hard it is depends on what user rights you have). Since you added your sandbox thing onto there, it looked like you created the article. And sure, the article was deleted for A1, but by adding the sandbox, anybody could see what the article looked like, and while humorous, that article was most likely created for vandalism having read it. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh JavaHurricane while I am at it, apparently an article in Daft, After Porn Ends, was removed because it was recreated. Can you check if the article has to be brought up in the AfD or if it should be speedily deleted? Thanks. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Really depends on if it meets WP:N. A preliminary pass indicates that it meets the criteria for films, but I'll go through it again. -- JavaHurricane 02:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! How's it going? I really don't know how to speak well with you, because I don't speak English very well. But, I will try to do my best, to communicate well and that you understand me. I want to talk about some facts about "Somos tú y yo". First, "Somos tú y yo, un nuevo dia", was a telenovela created by the Venezuelan producer Vladimir Pérez in 2007, and had only 2 seasons, the last season was broadcast in 2008. When it ended, the creator of the series, Vladimir Pérez (This he has said it on many occasions in interviews in Spanish), he decided to create a spin-off of the series, called "Somos tú y yo, un nuevo día", inspired by the movie Grease and set in the 50s, is the latter's a spin-off, and it's a completely different story. I invited him to see both productions so that I noticed the difference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.167.244.193 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The article's been protected now, so you'll have to resolve this with User:Bradford on the talk page. I only got involved because it appeared you were reverting his edits without explanation. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago you put a "copy edit" tag on William Walker (Wyandot leader). I reverted your tag as too general, and you inserted a more specific copy edit tag. Today, I fixed the apparent problems of the article. It took me about 5 minutes. You could have fixed the problems in as little time as it took you to place copy edit tags on the article -- and that would have been a more valuable use of your and my time. Smallchief (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ionmars10: Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket.

Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures.

He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this.

Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Moamem, well unfortunately I'm not particularly familiar with this topic (or with content disputes in general) but I'd suggest seeking assistance at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Ionmars10 (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ionmars10, I know you acted with best intentions, but please be a bit more careful when changing year ranges to properly use dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-). In these edits ([1]) this messed up a number of valid dates in "yyyy-mm" format. While this usage is unorthodox in the article body per MOS, it is nevertheless a correct and common date format in large parts of the world (as well as in ISO 8601 contexts), so it generally must be expected as input also by scripts. So, if you are not sure that something is actually a year range in disguise (and some of the edited dates didn't make any sense at all if interpreted as year ranges), please don't perform the edit. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, sorry about that! Normally I'd say I'm pretty good at checking over these types of semi-automated edits (I've noticed for example that the MOSNUM dates script gets things wrong quite frequently) but I guess in this instance I zoned out while using AWB and didn't notice something was wrong. I'll try and keep this format in mind in the future. Thanks for fixing everything. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the comment there. I was just copy-pasting and didn't notice it! LOL!ChessEric (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

ChessEric, no worries; turns out it was originally added only a few minutes before you did the copy-paste. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your copy edits, particularly on Jacob Collier and related articles. (I apologize for accidentally reverting some on Djesse Vol. 3 yesterday!) Noahfgodard (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

		The Typo Team Barnstar
		Thanks for your contribution especially in Piko Interactive -Chinogrids (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the long wait plays a factor in GD because it has to do with game history. I also referenced it to user based content because most of the "user-based" content came from the creator of the game, RobTop, who knows stuff about 2.2. Message me if you need to talk to me. --♦M-ir_AHE-zeGUy♦ (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also some of the references come from the creator himself --♦M-ir_AHE-zeGUy♦ (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Miklaszewski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward R. Murrow Award.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Hi Ionmars10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! TheSecretImpostor (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I have a question. Why was the controversy on Sam Denby's page removed when the source was the picture of his conversation with Pieke Ronefos ?Anilgaming2007 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Anilgaming2007, because a screenshot is not, on its own, a reliable source. It could easily be fake, and even if it wasn't, doing your own evaluation of a primary source without referring to reliable secondary sources goes against the original research policy. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't catch the first part of this ordeal, I just noticed your edit because I had the article on my watchlist after adding an image earlier tonight -- but why would you remove him from Category:American centenarians? His birth date is listed as December 13, 1920. You removed the category at... 2020-12-13T04:20:18‎. Your user page lists your time zone as EST, so your time is three hours ahead of mine, which makes this even more confusing. I figure you weren't looking at the time when you removed it, but he really is 100 years old now, so I reverted. jp×g 12:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

JPxG, because someone has already added the category. I don't want to dive any deeper into edit war territory than I already have, especially over something that has no effect on the rendered page, but just know that I am well aware that Shultz is now actually 100. Ionmars10 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it was already included?? I misinterpreted your edit summary then. How silly. I've self-reverted. jp×g 13:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.4.4.130 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Quintuple meter; I'll try to remember to put album titles in quotes in the future, and I'll add it to my watchlist for unattributed additions to try and keep it up to its existing high standards. I had not known that Jerome Kohl was no longer with us. Finney1234 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Finney1234, no problem, and thanks so much. There are days where I don't really feel like dealing with these lists, so having some extra hands on deck would be greatly appreciated. And yes, it was very sad to find out about Jerome's passing.

P.S. there's also Septuple meter and List of musical works in unusual time signatures, if you want to watch those as well. I try to make sure to do at least a quick Google search to see if I can find reliable sources for recently added entries, in the hopes of being able to salvage them. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that revert a day ago. If I had looked for more than 1 second I would have seen it was from you. Only looking at the edit diff made me think it was a vandal trying to change the infobox from 'Video game antagonist' to 'Microsoft Antagonist', which I thought of as a judgement on Microsoft for some reason. idk. SWinxy (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

SWinxy, no problem, though I should note it wasn't me who made the original edit. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Ok, so it *was* an IP edit. I guess I'm not going mad. SWinxy (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Could you advise why you made this revert - no edit summary was provided, and I do not think it conflicted with the arbitration decision as outlined in the edit notice at the top of the page. --Kwekubo (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kwekubo, apologies for the confusion. The source you added turns out to have been one that has been suggested, and the consensus is that it doesn't meet WP:BLPPRIMARY. I had to revert your edit in order to avoid bringing attention to the source. Ionmars10 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ionmars10:

Hi Ionmars10 from PlainDonut. Thank you for your updates of List of centenarian masters track and field records. To assist in my learning how to update Wiki articles better. Is there an article which explains the numbers associated with autogenerated? I am trying to understand how to use 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, etc. with the autogenerated. Example: <ref name=autogenerated3> ^{[1] [2]} <ref name=autogenerated11> <ref name=autogenerated13> Appreciate your time, thank you, PlainDonut PlainDonut (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PlainDonut, apologies if I misunderstood your question, but how Reflinks works is it assigns a number to each distinct reference to use as its title (note that this isn't the same as the number that's displayed on the final article). So if you see that a specific reference has been given the name autogenerated3, you can refer to it again simply with <ref name=autogenerated3 /> rather than having to copy-paste it again, with the additional benefit of reducing clutter in the "References" section.

You may want to consider changing the ref titles to something more human-readable - I'd recommend doing this by copy-pasting the wikitext into your preferred text editor and doing a find-and-replace. (Unfortunately I tried to do this with WP:ProveIt and it only renamed the first usage of a given reference, failing to update the others accordingly.)

I'm not an expert with Reflinks, but you can find further documentation here. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ionmars10:

Hi Ionmars10 from PlainDonut. Thank you. My question was regarding the numbers themselves. I think what you are saying is that Wiki generates the number itself (not the person writing the article). Hence the article writer inputs "autogenerated" and the Wiki system would assign a number (let's say the number 3 for this discussion purpose). Wiki then attaches the number (not the article writer), and it becomes "autogenerated3" ... Anyway, I will have to experiment with it. Thank you. PlainDonut PlainDonut (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a Disambiguation Page now. We don't need the link. Have a nice day! Pyramids09 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Pyramids09, are you intending to have the disambig page moved to "CGOL"? Because otherwise, I don't really see the purpose of it as it currently stands, since it only has two items. Right now, anyone who types "CGOL" into the search bar is going to land on the programming language and will need to click once to get to the cellular automaton, whereas the disambiguation page would add an unnecessary extra step to the process. Also, you removed the old hatnote without substituting a new one, meaning I (and other readers) would have had no clue of its existence. On the other hand, if CGOL were moved to CGOL (programming language) and users landed on the disambig by default, that might be more useful in the case where the two possibilities might be considered roughly equally probable. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind then. Have a nice day! Pyramids09 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ionmars10,

You recently tagged this page for PROD deletion. I noticed that you used Twinkle. Could you please set your Preferences to "Notify page creator"? It's an important step of the deletion process to let the page creator know that their page has been tagged for deletion and the reason why. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies; I mistakenly assumed that the user who messaged me was the same one who created the page and thus that a notification would be redundant. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

f EditorJuniorS (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Warning . We are giving a information, a news . This is not any Marketing. 2402:3A80:1CD2:970:DB82:5507:3783:85FB (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Still, I can't find any indication that the name you gave is actually notable in anyway, let alone notable enough to be given two whole sentences in the article lead, before any other names are mentioned. The link you posted didn't work; although I managed to recover it. I'm not sure what exactly the "INTERNATIONAL STAR DIRECTORY" is; Google gives various different results, but as I suspected, they're pretty much all commercial star naming scams rather than names given by actual astronomers. The names given in the article are ones either officially recognized by the IAU or unofficially recognized by scientists due to some interesting property the star has. Your citation also claims that she bought land on Mars (which, again, is not a thing people can actually do) and that she sent her name to Mars (which she probably did... along with 11 million other people) Ionmars10 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

On 1 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article July 2022 United States floods, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Carter00000 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The filing is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alsoriano97. Please provide any information on background or specific incidents if you would like to. Carter00000 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello@Ionmars10. I think we need to discuss the Chicago Memorial Day weekend shootings. I get your point about the scattered nature of the incidents but they still need to be entered to the list. If you have been editing the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 page, you will notice that even injuries are recorded. We just need to discuss the best way to include the Chicago (May 26th to May 29th) shootings. Let me know. Petra0922 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For something to qualify as a mass shooting, it has to be a single incident. All seven sources we use agree on this. A series of separate shootings where the only connection between them is that they happened to occur in the same city around the same time does not count. Per the NBC article, the only one of these that would be considered a mass shooting by our definition would be the South Ashland shooting, where four people were shot. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Tornadoes of 1091 has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Noah^Talk 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The page Category:Tornadoes of 1091 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_15#Category:Tornadoes_of_1091

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

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 7 § Category:Mass shootings in Australia by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Murder in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)