Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya
I note you are changing the name of the Circuit de Catalunya to the above. If you have a source for this name I suggest you give it in an Edit summary. if not, I suggest you stop making these changes as your work will almost certainly be reverted. Britmax (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I changing the name to official name and give wikilink to valid name of article, not to redirect. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great. It would help if you would leave an Edit summary as we have constant problems with vandals who can change dozens of articles for no reason, meaning another editor has to change them all back rather than doing something useful. And with no Edit summary the difference between legitimate edits and vandalism is hard to see as sometimes there isn't any difference. Britmax (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, edit summary. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Subtropical-man. I have reverted your edits for F1 seasons before 2014 - WP:F1 convention is to refer to circuits by what they were called at the time, e.g. Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari is referred to as Autodromo Dino Ferrari before 1988, when the name was changed. DH85868993 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Re:Can't Get You Out of My Head
Hi. Okay yes maybe I acted a little too hastily on the five million thing, but a web source I found only lists sales of over five million. (http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/yradish/biggest-selling-singles-since-the-year-2000.html). I have no problem with it having more than nine million copies sold but a web source or a source you can click and see for yourself would be much better. Do you have any source that confirms this other than that book? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics
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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics 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.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi...since I am a helping contributor I was a bit put off when you reverted all of my edits (at least half would've been nice just for good faith). It's not like I was vandalising or the fact that I done it everywhere (I only aimed capital cities). After all, there are still cities with the green precip boxes (obviously not made me) - shouldn't they be reverted too? Oh, I thought the green precip figures make them standout against the temp lows (which can also be blue in colour).
As I asked on my talkbox, may I add the green colour to the climate boxes of Sydney suburbs - there are only around 6-7 of them. Would that 'hurt'? I believe I did overdo it (I was slightly provoked since I got a 'thank' from a user). So, may I add 'green precip' to the Western Sydney suburbs? Again, Sydney's climate box is green, so why not its suburbs? I'd love to have a chat about it and have your thoughts. Meganesia (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: There was no consensus at. Shouldn't this page apply to you: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I believe I can revert most of my additions back, because this wasn't fair. Meganesia (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- there is slight consensus
- previously and also partly currently existed status quo
- there are still objections, comments, new ideas - there are still discussion (for example violet colour for cold temperatures or other) - so, absolutely should pause of change colours, absolutely unacceptable changes on a large scale (dozens, hundreds changes in articles).
- in this case works the principle of Wikipedia:CYCLE (edit, revert = discussion and consensus), so.... your edit, revert (for example by me) = must to be discussion and consensus
- in particular, other (not all, but sufficient that part of the) users (including me) are opposed to your change, so... must to be consensus.
Generally, as you can see (five sentences above), your changes can not be done. Further discussion is in one place - here. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, the slight consensus comes from the silent consensus from the weather box since it hasn't changed that much. I think for now, stop the colour changes (both of you). Subtropical-man, you stated "I have a big impression that one person spoke with himself above, hmmm." would imply that I am running a sockpuppet account. That is not true. I rarely edit Australian city articles and I have never uploaded any photos yet. You better provide ample evidence for that statement though because accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is wrong. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Ssbbplayer,
- not accusing someone of sockpuppetry
- "stop the colour changes (both of you)" - no, I not change colour, I just keep watch that no one was doing it. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I thought it was. It just seems like it. It was a misunderstanding. Easier to understand now. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- So far, I have seen that violet colours are still supported by a clear the majority and has not been implemented yet. I wonder if it can be done soon? Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Change color from blue to violet in the code of weather infobox - theoretically around one-two days, but we need discussion about radiation/varieties of violet to use. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have restored the discussion on it. It should be up on the talk page by now. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Removing Demographia references on Barcelona
I see you've reverted my edit to remove the demographia reference on Barcelona stating "revert - discussion hidden from other users, too early for mass changes"
I would like to point out that the discussion wasn't hidden in any way, and I believe the consensus was that the source was unreliable to be used in articles. Anna Frodesiak was also of the view that the unreliablity was demonstrated by the discussion there. Given that there was nobody disagreeing with removing an unreliable source inserted by a potential COI editor, could you please explain why you reverted me, and if you considered the link to be a source that shouldn't have been removed?
Some clarification would be good in this regard.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I totally support the removal, as stated here User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Demographia yet again. For the record, I do not think TheOriginalSoni was reckless at all, as he even posted at my talk to be sure.
That thread at RS noticeboard was there until everyone had their say. The archiving time that is set is appropriate. Do you think it should be longer?
Also, what was needed was not a few more voices to even things out. That would not have been enough. The result would have been exclusion due to being disputed with no consensus for inclusion. What was needed was an enormous amount of voices suddenly making an incredible case for inclusion. There was a tiny chance of that. When content, including references, is disputed, the burden is on those who wish it included to get support, not the other way around. That's my position. You are welcome to post again at the RS board, but expect the same results. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Anna Frodesiak
- "The archiving time that is set is appropriate. Do you think it should be longer?" - this is not problem, problem is lack of information about discussion about remove the source. I noticed it only when User TheOriginalSoni remove links from articles, despite the fact that the long time I active in the topic - I noticed it after the fact.
- Between 250 and 300 pages of en.Wikipedia uses Demographia, few articles based on Demographia (as primary source), currently Demographia is main source about urban areas on Wikipedia (not only English Wikipedia). Quiet and weak compromise is not enough to remove such an important source. Should be inform others users on appropriate talk of articles, to continue the discussion. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm still waiting for you to act per the points Anna noted on my talk page. Please start a new discussion on this issue. I'm otherwise planning to resume the removal of the links in some reasonable time. Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, please read own talk page, Anna wrote "Start a new post at RS/N" on your talk page. You, or Anna or other, please "Start a new post at RS/N" + "Add a link there to the old discussion in the archives and state that you want open the matter again, and why" + "Consider linking to this thread" + "Let User:Elockid know" + "Post at a bunch of article talk pages that use this source, pointing them to the RS/N discussion". I support it, I oppose for your "Please start a new discussion on this issue. I'm otherwise planning to resume the removal of the links". Subtropical-man (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Err, no. Anna was clearly telling you to start the new thread and state that you want open the matter again, and why, and Consider saving your rationale for that new post. Please start the new thread with your rationale so we can end this problem quickly. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. I restart discussion about the source Demographia: World Urban Areas. New discussion is here. Regards. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Celebrity Net Worth
I was going by these previous discussions:   and the site itself, which disclaims its own accuracy:
- "All information presented on CelebrityNetWorth.com is gathered from sources which are thought to be reliable, but the viewer should not assume that such information is up to date or completely accurate or final. CelebrityNetWorth does not assume responsibility for any errors in the information it presents on this site. All information on this site is based solely on public information and is subject to change without notice."
Trivialist (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?
Hi Subtropical-man, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering why an Asian city is included as a European city? Are people here unfamiliar of Geography? It makes the encyclopedia look really silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Many Thanks for FINALLY updating the climate data of Istanbul. I have been waiting for this for more than 2 years!! I really appreciate that you included three different graphs showing the three neighborhoods respectively because climate- wise, they are different and including them is a must. Since I assisted to many climate conferences in the UN campus of Bonn (GER), I can tell that the topic "climate of Istanbul" has been lately a hot one. That is, no agreement on the salient climate characteristics of Istanbul has been so far reached because of the complications, which are explained by the borderline climate classification of Istanbul. Now you made it finally clear for us! Many thanks. And I do totally agree with you that Istanbul has a borderline Cfa, Csa and Cfb. Some have said that the Cfb is not present at all. I disagree. Though I would have wished to see the number of precipitation days for the other two graphs (also if possible sunshine hours), I congratulate you for your work. --VMAHALLESI (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istanbul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bahçeköy (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) 09:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure when you last looked at PORNBIO but your recollection of what it says in that AFD doesn't match what it says now. In fact, I have been around 2006 and some of the stuff you quote is only vaguely ringing a bell. Could I ask you to review the policy as it stands now and consider updating you vote to reflect what it says?Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Proposed EU introduction
Thank you for trying. I have been trying to edit that awful introduction since last year, but unfortunately had to give up. --Erzan (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all, don't template the regulars. I am well-versed in Wikipedia's customs, guidelines and regulations, so I have no need for you to send me standard, boilerplate notes. Second, please read WP:BRD. The guideline is that any editor can make a bold edit, but any other editor is well within his/her rights to revert that edit; the next step is for you (as the BOLD editor) to start a discussion for others to contribute to. You must not engage in an edit war. Please abide by the regulations and I will have a discussion with you, but if you start an edit war, I will treat you as a disruptive editor. – PeeJay 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether it's an essay, a guideline, a policy or just something someone wrote on a piece of toilet paper; the editors of Wikipedia mostly abide by WP:BRD, and if I asked anyone from WP:FOOTY about the appropriate course of action here, they would undoubtedly recommend the course of action suggested by that page. Trust me, we both have the same goals at heart here – that is, to make the best encyclopaedia we can – but it just so happens that we have a difference of opinion that other people need to weigh in on. The discussion suggested at WP:BRD isn't for us to hash out the same old arguments again and again, it's for everyone else to have the opportunity to speak without the need for endless edit warring. Now, are you going to play by the rules or not? – PeeJay 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- So are you going to start the discussion or not? You want the info included, you have to start the discussion. – PeeJay 20:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Largest population centres in the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (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) 08:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Subtropical-man, you might be interested in a discussion I started here: Talk:Potential superpowers#Should Russia be removed from this article?. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
i am not a sock puppet
why you suspecting me lol?--Crossswords (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cubelles power station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barcelona Province (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) 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Re your post on my Talk page: If you had read the article's Talk page, you will have noticed that I had already raised the issue for discussion. I did not remove the data, nor did I amend the content of the article other that to add a label as specified in the wiki help pages concerning questionable sources.
As it stands, the comment and the labelling of the article is still relevant; even though the data is available in the PDF documents, the source of the data is not explicate - i.e. the source is not clearly identified in the documents. The documents are also hosted on a site which can not be identifiable as relevant, and has no link to the purported source of the data. In short, the data may be valid, but the citations are not.
In addition, please note that I am not an inexperienced editor, and that it is not appropriate to be making threats. BlueSulla (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in Genoa
Hi! I'm Cirobob (Roberto), the user who removed Leonardo Towers and Gadolla Tower from the list of tallest buildings in Genoa. I posted this message in the talk of the same article too.
Speaking about the Leonardo Towers, they relate to a new hi-tech pole which is giong to be built in the suburbs of Genoa. At a first stage, in 2004, the project was committed to Renzo Piano, who designed the 12 Leonardo Towers. Nevertheless, just a year later, for the design of the executable project, the work passed to the architect Mario Bellini, who planned a different type of district, with many 8-10-store buildings and only two 140m towers, the ones I added to the list (called S-4a and S-4b), which in the article are now mentioned altogether as "Torri degli Erzelli", which means "Erzelli Towers" but they're actually two separate buildings. Since then the preliminary project by Renzo Piano was completely abandoned, while the new one was included in city masterplan. Then in 2009 work started and in 2012 the first building of the plan was built, while the construction of the two towers have to start yet.  I apologize not having speaked about the topic before updating the article and actually I can be wrong, however I thought and still think that cancelled projects should not be part of the article.
On the other hand, speaking about Gadolla Tower, actually the project has never been cancelled as Leonardo Tower's one, it just remained a project and in the future it can be reproposed, so in this case I'm almost certain I did a mistake cancelling it.
Let me know what you think about it, Roberto
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
- If you have any questions, please do let me know.
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)