User talk:BigJim707

Hi you all.BigJim707 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your input on Jewish Defense League. Fayerman (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your help with copyediting at Time, Inc. v. Hill. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group (evolutionary biology)

Thanks for asking!

I do not understand why you would want to AfD this or any of the others. There is no WP:SYN or original research, the article(s) have WP:Notability, the content is not suited for Wiktionary, WP:D disambiguation, so what's the problem? Perhaps I've missed someting? Marshallsumter (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Athough it's clear that a dominant group is a group that dominates other groups it's not clear that the expression has some meaning beyond that obvious one. WP can't have an article on every two words put together. If you promise me that you will not quit WP because of it I would like to nominate the articles for deletion. That might turn out to be a good thing if people come to there rescue. BigJim707 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point you've made with "some meaning beyond that obvious one" is the key. The term is used with significance, not just as purely descriptive, and authors try to address that meaning within their discussion. The term is often used as a label for the object of research effort so it's not within the category of "every two words put together". The term dates at least from 1859 and Darwin's origin of species as a key point in Darwinian evolution. Yet the term now is all over usually within the same format of the metadefinition. My real concern with the AfD approach is that it is a last resort not a first choice per WP policy. The usual crew who attends an AfD is a minority of about 10 out of 3000 who read the article and often the same group of people (of about maybe twenty). If you put that tag on there I'll have to find supporters by RfC in the hopes enough people will even care, whereas the deleters wait for that notice to attack like sharks. In addition to my articles, the phrase "dominant group" occurs in some 260 articles on WP. "Obvious one" occurs in 113. "To be" occurs in 700,337, and there is an article on To Be as a musical single! "Dominant group" occurs on Google Scholar 65,900 times often within an article title: 260/65,900 = 0.4%, "obvious one" occurs 64,600: 0.2%, and "to be" occurs about 4,240,000, 16.5%, so clearly it's not any two words. If you try to AfD you'll probably succeed in getting just about any article deleted below the status of GA if its notability is below 50%. The notability in mine is usually that or better. So, if I may say, the case of any two words is very weak. The use of the term 'dominant group' by an author indicates importance not just juxtaposition. You've made a good point and I'm trying to address it. So "yes" it hurts my feelings because the AfD process is supposed to be a last resort not a first. And, "no" putting the article up for deletion won't demonstrate it's suitability for WP either. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what I could do to improve the articles since I don't have a mental grasp of the concept they are trying to convey, beyond "a group that dominates other groups" as I said. I already posted notices on several projects, which should reach dozens of potentially interested editors, asking for help and no one has responded. So AfD is not my first resort. I get the feeling that you will survive so I will go ahead with the AfD's and we'll see what happens. Wishing you good things. BigJim707 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as an after thought, take a look at the article Oppression. Almost no notability, problems all over, yet no one's trying to delete it. Why not either delete it or improve it. Also, if you posted the request for help in the last couple of days, say for dominant group (evolutionary biology), the readership jumped by 50%, so maybe they are saying, "leave it alone". Marshallsumter (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I will. Better to First do no harm. BigJim707 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! First do no harm has been my motto for years. My best to you. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi!

May I request a comment (WP:RFC) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). Marshallsumter (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your help on Crisis of the Roman Republic.

Bearian (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and governments since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited El Cerrito, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page US Post Office (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) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

Hi, I noticed that you were involved in the October 2011 discussion for moving Template:Cult to Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects. The move, I believe, was well-intentioned, but has had the side effect of editors adding groups that are New Religious Movements, but not cults or sects, to a template that is used primarily in cult-related articles. I have started a discussion on the talk page, where I feel your input would be valued. Thank you, ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

As this article says "This page is intended to reflect the page Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States." I am notifying all those who !voted in the AfD for that article about this AfD discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Killer toys

Hello, regarding the article killer toys, I have overhauled it and have provided a more limited list with all entries backed by reliable sources. I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer toys. I hope you will take a look at the new list and my comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. BigJim707 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evergrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cults (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) 11:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Martin (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) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For those who commented at the AfD, a merge discussion has been initiated.

As someone who participated in the AfD for Ethnic penalty you may be interested in joining the merge discussion which was indicated as a next possible step by the closer: Talk:Discrimination#Merge_Ethnic_Penalty.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ticket to Heaven

Hello, regarding Ticket to Heaven, you did not have to remove the plot summary. It is the film itself that is the source for the summary. We can use primary sources such as films as long as we provide basic descriptions from them. If there are interpretative claims, they should be removed or backed by secondary sources. You can see our guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Polygamy into Cult. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that policy. Will be more careful from now. BigJim707 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New religious movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channelling. 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) 10:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article rename

I've proposed to rename Mind control to Brainwashing. I'm letting you know since you contributed to the article. Redddogg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mind control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kidnapped. 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) 09:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kathleen Taylor (biologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mind reading. 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) 10:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mind control

We recently had a consensus-based decision to move Mind control to Brainwashing. However, there has been no consensus to change the redirect target. Please note that per WP:MALPLACED, a "Foo" title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title because this creates the incorrect impression that the "Foo" title is not available for the disambiguation page. Please also note that when disambiguating an existing title with incoming links, those links must be fixed before the change is made. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's kind of over my head. Sorry if I caused any problems.BigJim707 (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why just don't have Mind Control and Brainwash at the same time - people have different concepts of this and they may be searching for different terms?--37.230.17.215 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But in the end, let us take it to the news - they do it on a daily basis - giving no exact term, but they are so successful doing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.17.215 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I do remember using the term "terrorism" but it does not show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.17.215 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Borock (talk · contribs · logs)

Just for a note: It is always possible that this "CheckUser" has had some ulterior motive (as always in Wikipedia)

Speedy deletion nomination of Muddy the waters

Hello, BigJim707,

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

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged Muddy the waters for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Csgir}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Csgir (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)