User talk:Subtropical-man/Archive 1

Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, edit summary. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re:Can't Get You Out of My Head[edit]

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)[reply]

Nomination of Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Green rain[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meganesia, currently:

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)[reply]

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,[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Demographia references on Barcelona[edit]

Hi,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Celebrity Net Worth[edit]

I was going by these previous discussions: [2] [3] 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)[reply]

Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?[edit]

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)[reply]

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 94.194.205.65 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

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)[reply]

PORNBIO[edit]

Hi,

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)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposed EU introduction[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:BRD[edit]

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. – Pee Jay 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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? – Pee Jay 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to start the discussion or not? You want the info included, you have to start the discussion. – Pee Jay 20:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

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)[reply]

Potential superpowers[edit]

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)[reply]

i am not a sock puppet[edit]

why you suspecting me lol?--Crossswords (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Subtropical-man. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Genoa[edit]

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.[4][5] 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

Rollback[edit]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Europe[edit]

I've already provided a reliable source from CIA that put Croatia within Southeast Europe under Geography section Croatia Noseamuseos (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same user continues to revert reliable source. What can I do? I am new here and do not want to play the nonstop revert game. Could you provide some help if possible? Thanks in advance. Noseamuseos (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the Lovers[edit]

Hi subtropical-man,

For some reasons you reverted the edit I did yesterday and I would like to know why. If it was concerning the sales figure I added, I would understand, but InfoDisc has been used in some of Kylie's articles. However I think the clean up is pretty justified as the template:singlechart is easier to work with and adding refnames in each chart entries makes the code less tedious as manually typing refences would become useless. I hope you understand. I wouldn't be editing articles without a reason.

Thanks!

hkl1204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkl1204 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"PS. After analyzing your edits we (other users) can be inferred, that you is sockpuppet. You can not use more than one account, this is prohibited. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"

That is just a deliberate attack - I have no relation to 'sockpuppet', I also doubt any others have come to that conclusion. BlueSulla (talk)

Proposed deletion of Adventure science fiction[edit]

The article Adventure science fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a recognised subgenre. This article instead describes space opera, military science fiction, science fiction opera, cyberpunk etc.

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. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Proposed deletion of Adventure science fiction[edit]

I will find the correct deletion tag sometime later and add it so there can be a voted deletion.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limassol November mean temperature[edit]

The lower mean is 13.5, not 15.5. 18.5 was correct (both in the article and in the source). 83.168.23.138 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limassol[edit]

Why did you revert my edit here? 213.7.22.7 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to delete article Jayden James[edit]

His, you voted keep in the AFD for Jayden James. There currently is an article review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26) regarding the decision to delete the article about Jayden James. Perhaps you want to join the discussion? – user:fdewaele

Climate normals for Valencia and other Spanish Cities[edit]

Hello You changed the climate table for Valencia back to the 2001-2010 normals. 1. There is no source for these 2001-2010 normals. 2.The source for my 1981-2010 climate normals can be downloaded here http://www.aemet.es/es/conocermas/publicaciones/detalles/Valores_normales 3. I think 10 years are too short of a time period for climatic averages. I will now change them back too 1981-2010 normals, but if you have a source for these 2001-2010 normals you can change them back.

Guajara3718 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 1. There is source for these 2001-2010 normals. Ad 2. Your source is unverifiable, in application, during showing data, pops up error Ad 3. I thing 30 years are too long a time period for climatic averages because 30 years ago the climate was different, ideal period is about 15 last years~(2000-2014 is ideal period). Ad 4. you've done a few bugs in the sources, I had to improve. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

may i ask why did u revert my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinkimuk (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do u know that On October 2, 2006, Georgia and the European Union signed a joint statement on the agreed text of the Georgia-European Union Action Plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy. in every juridical document Georgia is celebrated as Europe , so i thought Tbilisi as its capital could be in The list..... anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinkimuk (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern part of Georgia is situated in Europe. look at the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinkimuk (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinkimuk (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently undid my edits for LUZs. I understand why you did so. However, it is entirely uncontroversial to list EU LUZs separately from others as that's what the page is about. The debates around Turkey, etc. have been interminable and frankly racist. At least this is a solution that keeps everyone on the same page.

I'll put it in talk. Can you support it? thanks, (Stpaul (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Simply. This article is about "larger urban zones", no matter whether they are in the EU or not. Areas for only EU? Ok, see: Largest urban areas of the European Union, including urban areas in the European Union and nowhere else. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Churches at List of tallest buildings in Malta[edit]

Why did you separate the churches from the other buildings within the list?--Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xwejnusgozo: because skyscrapers and churches are (two) various types of structures. You might as well add chimneys ;) No, in most articles in Wikipedia, article of List of tallest buildings in... is skyscrapers, and churches is removed from article. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss before reverting[edit]

Please stop making unilateral changes to the London page! A thoughtful discussion occurred on the talk page about somehow moving (or perhaps even amalgamating) the second paragraph to the top, so your moving it even lower flies in the face of that discussion and also of WP:CON. If you have anything to contribute, I invite you to DISCUSS on the talk page before editing. NorthernFactoid (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Union[edit]

I suggest you explain your edits on the article talk page. The page worked to everyone's satisfaction, so far as anyone knew, before your edits. Now, it doesn't. If there is a technical reason for your edit, you need to explain it. The problem is that, with your edit, the page now looks crap. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting original research[edit]

Kindly refrain from non-constructive edits like this [6]. Your edit looks very much like vandalism. Not only do you reinsert unsourced claims without providing a source, you even remove the tag. These figures had been tagged for five years, removing them was long overdue. Wikipedia operates with sourced facts, not personal opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weather box[edit]

I see you restored the incorrect information to the weather box but didn't bother to take part in the discussion at Template talk:Weather box#Tweaks and corrections. If you had you would have noticed that "Average high temperature during the day (average maximum daytime temperature)" and "Average low temperature at night (average minimum night-time temperature)" does not apply to every country in the world. Those two statements indicate that the temperatures are only from a certain part of the 24 hour period and that part of the period called day or night is undefined. Because of your restoration of those phrases all the weather boxes for Australia, Canada and the United States are incorrect. None of those countries use a partial 24 hour period to obtain their maximum and minimum temperatures and for all I know there may be others. Do you know which countries use part of the 24 hour period for their maximum and minimum? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Good work on helping to save articles listed for deletion. Keep it up. Trout71 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Malta that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See [7]

Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly a personal attack, but it's close. Labeling other editors as "EU opponents" for rhetorical purposes is another example of commenting on contributors instead of on content. Please do not make unfounded and irrelevant accusations against others. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Rob984. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. See request posted here resulting in !vote sympathetic here

Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks and canvassing. The thread is Personal attacks and canvassing.The discussion is about the topic Malta. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I said even remotely fringes on Wikipedia's policy on harassment, I just don't believe your rather weak explanation. That's not harrassment. Anyways, regardless, as I said on the discussion, any further complaints about personal attacks or canvassing, you're blocked. If you need further input on any discussions, leave a neutral "Please comment at this talk page discussion at a WikiProject. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm still getting complaints about your conduct. I can't stress how close you are to a block right now. All these comments of yours about people being pro/anti US/EUR are disruptive. They are entirely unnecessary to the discussion, and are only serving to upset others. As an editor, Im advising you to stop arguing in the RFC, as you've made your point abundantly clear, you can't seem to control yourself in your comments, and all you need at this point is more editors giving a stance. As an Admin, I'm telling you that "disruptive comments" to the list of things that is going to get you a block if there are any more problems coming from you. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice[edit]

Subtropical-man, I'm KoshVorlon, I'm not an admin, nor anything other than a user, just like you are, so what I'm about to say to you is a suggestion only. You can ignore this, and it's fine, however, I'd strongly suggest you take break from editing EU articles, you're getting really heated about it, and it can cause you to make pretty dumb decisions. Please note I'm not saying you're pretty dumb, I'm saying it can cause you to make dumb decisions. I oughta know. I'm currently T-Banned (Indefinite T-Ban) from any mention of Transgend issues, any where on the Wiki. This was due to me loosing my cool and threatening to edit war with the admin.

I can assure you, you don't want that , nor a block, so, just take a break and cool down, it's worth it to do so! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: EU articles (EU topic) I edit very rarely - maybe a few times a year. I have no idea what you're talking. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rain colour[edit]

Cheers, no problem. I have used both and prefer to use green whenever I create new articles because it reflects pretty well on how nature looks and goes better if precipitation days and humidity are included in my opinion. It gets a bit to blue-ish for my liking if precipitation is blue as well - even though of course water looks blue in the ocean. Green is pretty much standard when it comes to Oregon and Washington for example. But as long as I'm okay for using green for new boxes I am fine. I'd like to add that I appreciate that you are not among those lazy Wikipedians reverting everything and that you left the humidity and precipitation day edits up.

Lommaren (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I complimented you for not being a lazy Wikipedian. You must have greatly misunderstood? :/ I actually think you did well in only changing what you did not like rather than removing everything.

Lommaren (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha what is going on here? I am not in any way insulting you haha. And how many edits someone has made doesn't define their competence for sure? Let's just knock it off and be friends :) Good night.

Lommaren (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Hello Mr.Subtropical-man, why did you change my information? I'm looking foward for your answer. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleandro.castorina (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Europe[edit]

I have alredy create a thread in the talk page List of tallest buildings in European Union, but it doesn't matter for someone who is "a citizen of the European Union confederation" I'm not interested in arguments like: this is so, because is so. Such articles as: Kosovo, need an objective point of view, not the point of view of frustrated people who got the exclusive right to write history. The discussion of such frustrated people as you, is pointless. People who should keep an eye on the basic principles of this project, break it, go on block me you are an ignorant optimist without objective point of view, like most people here. --Muffi (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malta[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edit to Malta saying that it needed to be sourced but I was just using info from further down in the article (which listed all of the small islands along with the three major islands). Even if we don't add that number, can we change the wording from referring to Malta as an archipelago of "a few islands"? It sounds very un-encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.184.85 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@70.27.184.85: If not "few", you can use word "several" or number with source. "21" break Wikipedia:No original research. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granada[edit]

Hi, could you have a look at the last two edits on Granada, wrt the edits made to the climate? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: Yesterday, I informed user [8]. Your edit is good. The user has entered the wrong changes. I informed user also today [9] Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time to report this user? I have tried to talk, but they just won't listen. Scr★pIron^IV 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: ok, I report this user. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire![edit]

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

Browse the new WikiProject page
Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Malta[edit]

I'm interested in why you reverted my changes to Climate of Malta. The English in the article could use a bit of improving, and using double-bold text in the header of the table looks to me out of place in Wikipedia. I didn't make any changes to the content of the article, merely to its appearance and grammar. Daß Wölf (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the hours arrangement - you're right, I did change the meaning by mistake. However, I think "most optimal arrangement" might constitute original research. It would probably be good to find a reliable source about that.

About the table, yes I did remove the bold. That made it look like the other tables in the article. Why do you think that is bad? Daß Wölf (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

! does make the text bold, at least in Firefox. When ''' is added around the header text, the text becomes very thick bold, which to me looks thicker than the headers of other tables in the article. Also, it doesn't matter if there's ''' after the text or not; it may look untidy in source code, but it does nothing (see for example unclosed  tags in the temperature row). Daß Wölf (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Silver[edit]

Why do they want to delete the Stacy Silver page? She was one of the biggest stars in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groensag (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Groensag: because fails WP:PORNBIO with nominations only. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 06:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Page was speedily deleted per CSD U1: "user request to delete page in own userspace" - I changed my mind to show what you is doing. But, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight is closed without consensus and outside administrators, page was speedily deleted per CSD U1: "user request to delete page in own userspace" - please inquire administrator who deleted page - CSD U1, not Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight, so. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the fact that you should not unilaterally alter a valid close merely because you disagree with it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I disagree with it? I just wanted to add the information [10] but no. You prefer trolling and edit-war. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Simply, you make a mistake [11]. I showed you clearly, page was speedily deleted per CSD U1: "user request to delete page in own userspace" - please inquire administrator who deleted page - CSD U1, not Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight. I can restore own page because page was speedily deleted per CSD U1: "user request", not "result of the discussion was speedily deleted on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight. Your mistake is obvious. I hope that you understand it, if you fix own a mistake [12], I consider remove page. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Stop harassing me. We are in a conflict for some time, please refrain from editing related to my person, on en.Wikipedia there are 119,755 active registered users [13], if I do something wrong - many users react, but not you and your porn-delecionist friends. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Compromise? See Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Subtropical-man/Catfight[edit]

User:Subtropical-man/Catfight, 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/Catfight (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Subtropical-man/Catfight 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Subtropical-man/Catfight[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Subtropical-man/Catfight, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Brustopher (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Subtropical-man/sandbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Subtropical-man/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Brustopher (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians and indians[edit]

Don't loose time with russian and indian people in the Talk of the article Potential Superpowers .Indians posted even India more important than EU.Behind english names are many russians.Lost time talking with people of the second and third world like that.They arrive always with new "invented" people to support their position.They all agree.One of them tell to be ukranian but in the reality is born in the part of Ukraine that want to join Russia.Rubbish the article now.Hallo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.77.143 ([[User talk:151.40.77.143|talk]]) 10:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids[edit]

Could you please stop putting silly requests for citations in inappropriate places. We do not need to reference facts in the lead sections of articles when these are cited in the article bodies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collage Rome[edit]

See the chart at the talk page. I am trying to restore the previous version. I think that's incorrect from you to keep revert and to use the "Last Warning". I think that there is a misunderstanding Barjimoa (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is offensive to say that I don't know how the cycle works. "Was the article edited further?" " No" "New Consensus". After some time (some weeks i guess) someone tries to change that version and to impose a new one. After that Alex2006 reverted the edit and opened a discussion at the talk page. Than you reintroduced the older version. Barjimoa (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Ta' Kola Windmill. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Ta' Kola Windmill/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of discussion is here. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I needed a few minutes to fix the problem (see my changes), you prefer bureaucracy: templates, long discuss, warnings, wait for administrators who check it (waste of time of administrator), ANI (unjustifiable) etc etc and also mark articles as copyvio despite the fact that article not breaking the rule because no exist one whole sentence, just similar few words next to each other - this is spamming. Your edits instead of helping fix the problem, are destructively and burdensome. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is current version: [14]. No copyvio, article is clean. You add template to article, so, you can remove template from article without waste of time of administrator, me and other users. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that this matter has been brought up at an administrators noticeboard. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of copyvio template, editing of blanked content -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is not totally free of copy vio, and needs some clean-up. The revisions, which contain more extensive violations, will have to be revision deleted to remove the copyright material from view. Please be patient, and the case will be resolved soon. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um...[edit]

Seriously? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia Climate Table[edit]

Why are you reverting the changes i made to the climate table? Guajara3718 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Please would you tell me an English translation for Dowód osobisty ?

Both the most usual translation and any rare translations (including literal ones) would be useful...

Thanks in advance! BushelCandle (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea? BushelCandle (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas :( Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. BushelCandle (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in working on the articles you de-prod'd?[edit]

Give the spam that they attract, I don't think stubbing them is a good idea. If you're not interested in working on them, I'll start an AfD. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayMillion.com[edit]

It wasn't prodded. I requested speedy. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress[edit]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "On a Night Like This", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 15:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recommend you to check the definition of cold desert climate[edit]

BWk is not true for Arrecife, look at the definition of cold desert climate in Köppen climate classification, the desertic climates with mean averages above 18ºC and winters with less than 0ºC average are considered as hot desert climates. Arrecife and Lanzarote clearly "meet" those requirementes. Anyways, look by yourself in the source from Lanzarote page (this source^[1]) as you can see the climate is defined as BWh, while those sources also say the same (Here^[2] and here^[3]). But anyways it's also common sense, just look for the meaning of cold desert climate. This climate better can entry under the description of mild desert climate because it's highly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean, but cold desert climates have very cold winters, while Arrecife's climate is warm and pleasant during all the year. Also, BWk holds for the centre of Gran Canaria and Tenerife islands, in places located at high altitudes, look at the map that you've put by yourself (the map of Köppen climate classification) only the center of those 2 islands are marked with pink... Also that image is in a big scale, you can determine which kind of climate is by searching for the climate standards under Köppen's classification... And Lanzarote island it's not BWk because all year average is above 18ºC (the annual average is above 21 degrees, check it on the official source of AEMET). Check it by yourself on the guide. Please Subtropical-man read better the description of BWk climate and search climate examples with that climate. For example Nukus has a cold desertic climate. It's averages during January are close to -5ºC, Lanzarote is close to 18ºC. Those are only explicative examples, as I've said before, please search for the definition of cold desert climate on Köppen climate classification. Regards. --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Las Palmas[edit]

Ok, I've returned the changes to your last edit, I don't want to keep arguing with other users, we both are right in some parts so I will put it according to your last change. But, there is something that it doesn't have to be there and I've edited it. Las Palmas doesn't have any Mediterranean climate precipitation patterns. Please put a trustful source saying this or I'll be forced to revert your changes, and if you break the Three Revert Rule I will have to notify administrators for Wikipedia:Edit warring, because the rain amount is 151mm per year, while climates with rain patters under 200mm per year are always considered desert climates by the Köppen climate classification. Also, in Las Palmas the most humid season is the late winter, while in CSa mediterranean climate from the Mediterranean basin the wettest season is the autumn (you can check the climate charts from truly mediterranean climates from the Mediterranean sea as Valencia, Rome, Athens, Nicosia or Alicante for example. This is a normal pattern for a desert climate, and also it rains less than 200mm per year so it can't be defined as "mediterranean". And if you want to put this, please source it. Regards. --HardstyleGB (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for deprodding but your deprodding isn't only disruptive but they're also invalid ...., Personally I think you need to take a step back from everything related to porn and perhaps edit other areas otherwise you could end up back at ANI and subsequently blocked, If you disagree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitzs prods then discuss it ... Don't just deprod every single article just because you want it kept, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010:

I deprodding only part of articles, not all prodding articles by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I (and every user in Wikipedia) have right to this. I deproding only articles, who the matter may be debatable. Articles, if they are not vandalism, They should not be masse and blindly removed from Wikipedia.
I send to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz warning, because blind and mass prodding is very disruptive.

Stop lying, Subtropical-man! You know perfectly well that no "blind and mass prodding" has occurred. The overwhelming majority of my PROD nominations, when followed up by AFD discussions, have resulted in deletion. That is particularly true for articles concerning porn performers where you have removed PRODs I placed. That group includes, to date, 28 articles. Of those, 23 have gone to AFD. One AFD is currently open (with a majority of delete! votes after seven days), and the other 22 have resulted in article deletion. That is a 100% accuracy rate for my nominations, and a 100% failure rate for your dePRODding activity. Your monkey see, monkey undo attempts to frustrate the application of a consensus guideline and your dishonest comments about editors who support that consensus amount to deliberate disruption and deserve to be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a regular troll [15][16] but I will answer:

I lie? Not, you are lying, here is the proof: you wrote: "That is a 100% accuracy rate for my nominations, and a 100% failure rate for your dePRODding activity", and see two examples: [17][18] from the second half of February. Your PRODs and your AfDs are senseless.
Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, quote: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." Repeat: uncontroversial. Consensus in WP:PORNBIO etc is one matter, but if some user(s) have doubts for delection, this is controversial and is not subject to PROD. Of course, for you and few deletionist users this is burdensome, but for me and few users your changes is very disruptive. Generally, I consulted with the administrator, I do not break any rules and I have the right to remove PROD tags from articles that I think it is inappropriate. I remind you that I removes the PROD tags from only part of the articles, not all (when I clearly see that the article does not deserve to leave to support tag), list of removed articles is proof. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you can scare with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but probably result is: no consensus for topic ban for me or topic (pornography) ban for us (me, Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz, Davey2010 and few other users), who clearly always vote for the removal of articles.
This matter has already been explained earlier, some months ago. PS. I do not care that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or Spiderman or Obama prodded many articles, if I see a good article, do not see the possibility of a quick, silent and blind removal. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown Comfort Suites[edit]

Good Evening,

I had left an email for you. Please let me know if you received it and if we can discuss what I would need to do on my end.

Thank you for you time, Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevans.pa117 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page comments[edit]

Per WP:BLANKING I'm getting the impression that the user can remove any comment from their own talk pages. Where does it say you can't remove templates? Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎ was perfectly within their rights to remove the messages from their talk page. The messages should not have been restored. Edit-warring to repost them was certainly ill-advised at best. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adventure science fiction for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adventure science fiction 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/Adventure science fiction 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Melia Barcelona Hotel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Melia Barcelona Hotel 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hilton Diagonal Mar Barcelona Hotel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hilton Diagonal Mar Barcelona Hotel 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hotel Princesa Sofia[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hotel Princesa Sofia 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Renaissance Barcelona Fira Hotel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Renaissance Barcelona Fira Hotel 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hotel Torre Catalunya[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hotel Torre Catalunya 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hotel Barcelona Princess[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hotel Barcelona Princess 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hotel Barcelona Princess for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hotel Barcelona Princess 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/Hotel Barcelona Princess 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. clpo13_(talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avg record high and low[edit]

Reading your post a 2nd time, "mass add more redundant information" is uninformed or inaccurate at best, lying at worst (let's hope it's not the latter). To begin, |year avg record low F= −3.9 for Pittsburgh is a 1981–2010 proxy for hardiness zone at that location. The |year avg record high F=92.7 is useful in this sense: it shows the most extreme heat that Pittsburgh can expect during a year is less extreme when compared to other cities in the eastern U.S.

Did you not read my edit summary: "restore; 'too large'? those who introduced these two parameters at Template:Weather box disagree. Discuss there" ? No one would add additional parameters to {{Weather box}} if they felt they served no use whatsoever; this goes without saying. Per that reasoning, you are the one who needs to discuss altering the status quo, which is including these two parameters, not me.

Why should it be only your place to decide what is necessary? Or perhaps you feel they are necessary because you do not understand what the two additional parameters entail? This is not very "inclusionist" of you, for someone who identifies with that label. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no intention to play your game of avoiding my attempt at substantive discussion here while rehashing the same debunked talking points at multiple places to create the illusion of my avoiding discussion entirely. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the projection.

User:Politoed89 questioned the accuracy (not whether they should be included if accurate) of the additions, and then he admitted that his interpretation was wrong ("OK, hold on..."). So clear case of misunderstanding.
"Without any consultation with other users". What's this then?
"I tried to argue with you". Yet no response to my questions or refutations raised here.

And keep your posts here, in one place. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CaradhrasAiguo, I explained to you in your discussion [19] but you would prefer to remove it like troll [20]. Again: at present U.S. weatherboxes are too large (~5,500 bytes, a template occupies the entire screen)... and you massively adding additional redundant informations without discuss and consensus. Bold edit in one to few articles are ok but you doing mass changes in dozens of templates, without any consultation with other users. You think that new information is necessary, others may have a different view. Per Wikipedia:CYCLE - if you want add more informations (after reverts by other user), must to be discuss and consensus first. Simply. Also, please read Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the same token, "Too large" is merely your opinion. You have not seen the prior discussion on the addition of these twin parameters, so it is false to claim there has been zero prior discussion on this matter.

"Occupies thee entire screen". Nonsense. Purchase a wider screen or use |width=auto as provided by {{Weather box}}, and exemplified at Chengdu#Climate. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Purchase a wider screen" - yes, I go to the store to buy a large monitor to browse Wikipedia because user CaradhrasAiguo want enter a very large templates. Wikipedia is encyclopedia for all, not only for peoples with large monitors. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie[edit]

Hey Subtropical-man, you are invited to participate in the move discussion at Talk:Kylie. Thanks. TheKaphox (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil[edit]

Hey there. Can you maybe tone it down a bit? Your commentary here is a bit intense. All the guy was doing was asking if either genre should be used as the band's primary genre. Yes, his question could have been centered a little more around sourcing, but instead of steering the discussion in that direction, you gave him this huge, rambling, redundant lecture on the basics. He's been around for over 2 years. And you kept linking and mentioning the same basic policies over and over again. It was excessive, especially considering either genre he mentioned are supported by endless number of reliable sources.

In the future, please try to be a little more constructive in your responses rather than just shutting them down, and check who your audience is before you start throwing up all that Wiki-alphabet soup at them. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me right now? Are you really linking me to basic policies directly after I just told you it was excessive to link to those same policies so many times in the comment prior? Are you trying to being patronizing? I know you know I'm a long time user - I almost blocked you back in 2015 for disruptive editing, and was part of the discussions when User KWW blocked you in 2012 for disruptive comments on talk pages. Furthermore, nothing in my comment suggested I didn't understand the most basic policies in Wikipedia anyways. I try to assume good faith, but what am I to interpret here? I tell you not barrage an experienced user with basic policies, and you barrage me with all sorts of basic policies?

If there's something I'm missing here, please enlighten me, but if not, cut it out with the games. Its not conducive to constructive discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but rules of Wikipedia are more important to me than your opinion.

I understand what you're saying BUT I not agree with this.
I understand also that you (and Statik N) are an experienced users BUT experienced user does not know by heart all the rules of Wikipedia.
You do not understand me, rules of Wikipedia is very important in this case, because I think that Statik N or/and you want (unaware) to break them. But I assume good will.
Please do not accuse me about non-constructive discussion, for me it is clear that you can not use your idea and I must to linked or must cite quote of rules. I exactly explain reason in Limp Bizkit talk page.
Stop trying to scare me. Please start of constructive discussion without scaring me. If you can not, we will have to ask someone for mediation.

Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It literally doesn't make sense to inform experienced editors of the basics over and over again. You directed an experienced editor to WP:OR twice in one comment, and when I said that was excessive, you linked me to it. It literally served no purpose. I didn't need a third path to the same page. Not only is it pointless, but it's the equivalent of WP:DTTR, and just bogging down the discussion with redundancies. Also, note that this discussion here on your talk page is not about your specific stance, but about your disruptive approach to discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive talk page comments revisited[edit]

Hi there. As I clearly stated, I opened up the "specific genre proposal" section discussion to discuss relevant genre to the band. Your comment almost entirely complaining about how you don't want to, and feel it can't be done. There's already a section for that. Keep those comments to that section. If you don't think it can be done, then you don't have anything to contribute to that discussion.

It's much like that saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Just substitute the word "relevant" in for "nice" and you've got the idea I'm getting at here. If you feel a solution isn't possible, that's fine, but keep it in that separate section. If you feel a solution is impossible, then there's nothing you need to be saying in the music genre proposal section. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a second section because you keep WP:BLUDGEONing the first one with misguided quoting of policy and its bogging down any attempts discuss an actual solution. This way, there's two sections: One for you to rattle on about about how, despite the fact that 10 GA/FA articles managed to come to a solution, you feel you can't, and one where actual solutions can be discussed. Also, your comments were not censored, they were just moved to the relevant section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your information was not removed, it was moved, intact. I started a discussion to discuss genre, and you went on and on about a general lecture on policy that weren't specifically answering the actual thing I was talking about. You don't need to repeat your little rant in every section I open up on the talk page. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, without actually applying it to the situation at hand. If it didn't convince people the first time, why would saying the same thing 8 more times move the discussion forward? Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I wanted to set up a separate section without you badgering me with policy you're not applying correctly, nothing more. (At least that's what I think you're trying to accuse me of? Its hard to tell with so many typos.) Regardless, right now, you're making a big deal out of nothing. If you'd slow down a bit, you'd notice that after you restored your comment to the incorrect section, and I did not remove it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Fix[edit]

The guideline on signature length notes long signatures with a lot of HTML/wiki markup make page editing and discussion more difficult, in particular Signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures. Your current signature code takes up 11 to 13 lines. I have examined and optimized your signature code. I believe the following code is identical to your current signature. Please copy-paste it into your User Preferences here. Thanx.

[[User:Subtropical-man|Subtropical-man]]{{su|lh=1|p=[[User talk:Subtropical-man| talk]]|b=(en-2)}}

Alsee (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I try but - errors. In Special:Preferences say "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags" and in Wikipedia show:

[[User:Subtropical-man|Subtropical-man]]{{SUBST:su|lh=1|p=[[User talk:Subtropical-man| talk]]|b=(en-2)}} (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Alsee - Not sure if you're aware but is deprecated and no longer works on most browsers which would probably explain Subtropicals' issue, is the new thing now (basically all of the crap in my signature!),

Subtropical - Have you tried changing to span?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 [[User:Subtropical-man|<span style="color: navy;">Subtropical</span><span style="color: red;">-man</span>]][[User talk:Subtropical-man|<span style="color: navy;"> talk</span>]]<small>(en-2)</small>

That will look like: Subtropical-man talk(en-2) Maybe that will work better. I changed it to span and I removed the template. Signatures shouldn't have templates. You must click Treat the above as wiki markup when you set the Signature Preferences. Alsee (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I used it:

[[User:Subtropical-man|Subtropical-man]] ([[User talk:Subtropical-man|talk]] / en-2)

and result: Subtropical-man (talk / en-2)

Thanks, Davey2010 and Alsee. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weather box[edit]

Please read this discussion before making further changes to {{Weather box}}. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Subtropical-man. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake on the article of Barcelona.[edit]

-1ºC every winter? From where did you get that laughable data? From the airport?? Because seeing any temperature under 1 ºC is a very, very rare phenomenon in the city of Barcelona.

@Subtropical-man: Better check the sources prior to make those kind of changes, which aren't useful at all. Check the source of the official station of Can Bruixa, as the climate chart shows this data:[21] As you can check in the official mentioned station of the city of Barcelona, the minimum was -1 ºC in a 30 year range.

Then, the extremes must be on the climate paragraph. The article Climate of Barcelona talks very specifically about this climate, but not all of the users would be interested in seeing another article just to see lots of data about this climate. Check any major city as Los Angeles, Berlin, London, Istanbul, Athens etc etc the extremes are a MUST. Who says that they haven't? And all of those mentioned cities have their own climate pages. I hope you will check the sources next time before making those kind of edits. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB: nothing "must". If there are separate climatic articles, in main articles of cities should be only the basic climate data, details should be in a separate article. Articles about cities are too large, we need formed separate articles. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia climate[edit]

Please stop deleting useful and valuable editions on the article of Valencia, specially mine, which costed me several time to compile that data.

Look at Los Angeles for example. The climate charts are full, and it has a separate climate page Climate of Los Angeles. There is no must for what must be and what doesn't must be on a climate paragraph.

This is useful information for most users looking at the page of Valencia. A very few users enter to see the separated page of the climate of Valencia (Climate of Valencia).

At least, if you don't want to keep the high and low avgs (the last ones I've added) please add them separately in the page of the climate of Valencia, and then leave at least the maximum and minimum extremes. Thanks --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First: maximum and minimum extremes are not useful in main article about city. If the reader wants to read additional informations of climate (including record high/low ever), that clicks on the link to separate article. I'm not interested in Los Angeles and American cities articles. Weatherboxes in American cities are absurd. Valencia is article about city for only major climatic data, for details of climate, there is a separate article: Climate of Valencia. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: I removed the mean maximums and minimums and I've added them to the page Climate of Valencia. Anyways, the extremes are a must as they're available. Don't break the 3 revert rule and reconsider your position on this. I don't want to warn a librarian about your editions, which are just intended to delete official and useful information without a valuable reason. I hope you will understand now and reconsider your position. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malta climate[edit]

Hello subtropical-man, do you agree with leaving the station of Luqa Airport (approved by the NOAA) in the page of Malta instead of the Balzan one?

Because this station uses the international standard of 1981-2010 average, it's an official station and also because the one from Balzan was "1985-" don't telling exactly how many years, the source itself don't specify them too.

Regards! I'm waiting for your reply. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and the List of metropolitan areas that overlap multiple countries[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of the Spanish municipalities which are nudged up to the Gibraltar border with Spain. I don't think these count as "metropolitan areas that overlap multiple countries" because the metropolitan areas do not extend into Gibraltar, only goes up to its border (as the article says, "extends to the border" - this does not mean "extends over the border"). This is what a border town is, and that is not a list of border towns. Don't you agree? --BurritoBazooka If you reply here, please add {{ping|BurritoBazooka}} to your message 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BurritoBazooka:, problem is misleading interpretation of the text in article. "Goes up to its border (as the article says, "extends to the border" - this does not mean "extends over the border")" - yes, Spanish part. Spanish part is to the border, beyond border is Gibraltar, not Spain. The area of Spanish towns and Gibraltar is a urban and metropolitan area, Around the Bay of Gigraltar / Bay of Algeciras. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BurritoBazooka: Sorry, but your edit does not make sense. There is one - single metropolitan area (not two Algeciras metropolitan area and Gibraltar metropolitan area). I correct sentence to simply "Algeciras and few other adjacent towns in Spain extend to Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About this,[edit]

I was thinking that "previous was better" is perhaps not a very informative edit summary; it just reiterates your preference, rather than explain it. Even if in this case it is fairly clear why you think the previous version is to be preferred (label4 referring to just christians rather than to both islamist and christians), an indication of _why_ you think so would make for better communication.

Just my 2c. 82.50.204.85 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move of National Stadium, Ta' Qali back to Ta' Qali National Stadium.[edit]

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Please see the image through the link below:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malta_-_Attard_-_Ta%27_Qali_National_Stadium_15_ies.jpg

As you can see, the formal name is "National Stadium" not "Ta' Qali National Stadium". Even the MFA's website stops at making reference towards "National Stadium".

It is currently named as is it known among the people and general media. Should remain the same. You can write officially named National Stadium Millennium Stand...or what proces your claim"Continentaleurope (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Subtropical-man. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inter-man[edit]

Hey. I just wanted to leave a friendly message, I hope it's not interpreted wrongly, as I don't mean it to sound threatening. I was going through investigations into the account of User:LUCPOL, and see that the account for Inter-man was blocked accidentally due to similar IPs. I noticed that someone mentioned this account here [22] I deduced they both must be your accounts due to the similar nomenclature. (Inter-man v. Subtropical-man). I mean, according to the userboxes, it's pretty obviously you. I'm not sure if you have access anymore to that account, but for transparencies sake, it would be possibly good to disclose that it's yours. If you do have access to it, maybe you'd want to add this template to the page, just in case? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related_accounts. :) R9tgokunks ✡ 07:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a bonfire[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2018 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

A bit of appreciation for improving articles related to the climate of many Spanish cities and regions. :)

TechnicianGB (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankx :) Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

There was nothing wrong with my edit on Sydney climate. It was fact you don’t even live in Australia so why are undoing my edit? Eve pendlebury (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest urban centers of the European Union[edit]

Template:Largest urban centers of the European Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --wooden superman 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle the L.A. Task Force[edit]

Your attention is called to the discussion here, suggesting retitling Los Angeles Task Force to Los Angeles County Task Force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Hello, Subtropical-man. You have new messages at Deskford's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Deskford (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Wikimedians User Group October 2018 meetup invitation[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: Filipino American History Month-themed Edit a thon in Mira Mesa, San Diego.

When: Sunday 7 October 2018, 1:00PM PST / 1300 until 3:00PM PST / 1500

Where: Mira Mesa Branch Library

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 01:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

Bourke[edit]

During the great Australian heatwave of 1903 Bourke recorded a maximum temperature of 49.7 C making it the highest recorded temperature in New South Wales and on the of highest recorded in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.174.228 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

undo[edit]

hey why did you undo my edit on the climate of Sydney? there was nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourke 49.7 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This bloke from Sydney is seen standing on the main street of Bourke,NSW,Australia.

Now Bourke has a Hot semi arid climate with very hot summers and mild winters. The highest recorded temperature in Bourke was a whopping 49.7 degrees during the great Australian heatwave of 1903. That's a lot hotter then Malta's record high of 43.8 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourke 49.7 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bourke 49.7: why are you writing this? I do not see any connection with the minimum temperature of 5 or 7*C. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for a Edit a thon in Chula Vista[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: A Edit a thon in Chula Vista.

When: Sunday 11 November 2018, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:00PM PST / 1600

Where: Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 21:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Subtropical-man. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced genre additions[edit]

Pleased don’t add unsourced genre to articles, as you added rapcore to countless Limp Bizkit-related articles. Continued violation of WP:V could lead to your account being blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCs from years ago had a consensus to use rap rock. Why are you removing everything except “American band” from every Limp Bizkit article in existence? Participants agreed that was too vague of a term, and that not how it’s handled with virtually any other band. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, ok - I'm added rapcore to some articles - my bad. But, generally - I mainly removed disputed music genres in articles (with a few exceptions). I have not broken any rules. For me - it could be like this (as "American band"), if you want to insert of music genre supported by consensus (rap-rock), ok - I do not mind. I wondering that in articles for X time functioned "nu metal" or other genres and was not your reaction, I removed it and you admonish me. Earlier, you've had time to improve this articles, you did not correct. So, I made corrections. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t monitor every Limp Bizkit article in existence, just the main one and Stampede of the Disco Elephants, as it’s a constant source of issues, and it was there that I noticed that you added rapcore, and then after that I checked your edit history, which showed you making the same changes all over the place. Anyways, regardless, if you stop adding rapcore, and aren’t opposing the inclusion of rap rock, then we’re good to go. Are you okay with that? Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, I understand, no problem. Do you think these editions like this is ok? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s perfect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! IWI (chat) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: - generally, I think that thread was unnecessarily created. Maybe the discussion has stalled, however, it is not my fault nor you or Castncoot. We have a different opinion about case, simply. I express my opinion in talk page, you and Castncoot also. So? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we need more editors to express their opinions. IWI (chat) 22:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: - you mistyped the page. You created a page for conflict in the discussion, not for more editors to express their opinions. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely is a dispute, and there definitely is a need for more editors since none of us agree. IWI (chat) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: - it does not matter. There must be a consensus but there is no consensus. Opinion by some other about our discussion it will not change anything. This page is not used to reach consensus about articles but for conflict resolution in the discussion. Wrong page. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As they say, you could argue in an empty house. Are you seriously having a dispute – about dispute resolution? This is a joke right? We are in the middle of a content dispute at an impasse; it is the right place. IWI (chat) 23:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: - I think it's another your trick. You create case in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard [23] about three users (me, you and Castncoot)..... for opinions by more editors to case of name of Los Angeles? There is no conflict here. Each of us has own opinion - this is normal. There must be a consensus, this is normal - but there is no any consensus. I understand that you do not like it. If you want to push your version against rules and fast and quiet, no page will help you. I have nothing against honest discussion and honest consensus with more users, but Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is totally wrong place to create consensus about name of Los Angeles. You do not need to make it difficult, it will slow down the matter and not speed it up. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, we are getting nowhere going around in circles, the other users aren't active in the discussion right now. Let's just see what happens. It's not a trick, simply asking more experienced editors to have their say. IWI (chat) 23:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at List of countries and dependencies by area shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena Climate[edit]

Hello. Sorry to bother you.

You undid recent changes to the Pasadena, CA climate data and left a comment on my page. Each of my points are a response to the same numbers points that you left.

1. The WRCC, Western Region Climate Center, is a one of the members of NOAAs National Center for Environmental Information. You can find the official government site here: https://wrcc.dri.edu/

2. Meteorological agencies use a period of 30 years to determine a cities climate. The most recent 30 years are always used, sometimes by decade, such as 1981-2010 or 1971-2000, and other times simply by year such as 1989-2018. There are 30 years between 1989 and 2018, not 21. (This is including all of 2018, so although it looks like 29, it is 30)

3. Read last point.

4. Refer to point 1. The Western Region Climate Center is a portion of NOAA, and therefore can be cited as such.

Please do not revert these edits again. They are the most accurate representation of Pasadena's current climate, a city that I not only live in but have done extensive research on climatologically. As a result of a rapidly changing climate in the area, it is necessary to update the 30-year climate period every year, instead of every 10th year. I have been updating this Wikipedia page every January since 2014. I have created a google sheets document to help me track the changes in the cities climate. If you would like to view it to confirm is validity, I would be happy to share the link with you.

Thanks for reading, and I hope we can get this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityscaper (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to attend a mini Unconference in Mission Valley[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: San Diego mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 February 2019, 6:00PM PST / 1800 until 7:30PM PST / 1930

Where: Starbucks at Fenton Marketplace

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

Hello. 25 January 2019.[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to ask you why did you delete the extreme temperatures from the chart in the Lisbon article. I understand there is a separate Climate of Lisbon page, so is in many other locations and they still have the extremes, but not everyone is interested in looking at a secondary page just to see some extremes. I mean, I want to make it easier for users interested in this paragraph, especially mobile user ones, from my point, being a Wiki user I prefer to see the extremes since they're very important, rather than looking at them in a specifical page. I agree humidity, sun hours, etc. more specifical things do belong to the separate page, but something as basic as extremes? I would like to add them again. Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB:, the extreme temperatures are not the most important climatic features. Average data are the most important, extreme temperatures are detailed data. Weatherboxes are too large to place detailed data - and if there is a separate article, placing detailed data to main article of city is harmful. You wrote: "any other locations and they still have the extremes" - if there is separate article of climate, we have to delete the details data from main article. These are the standards of Wikipedia, if there is a separate article, the data in the main article should contain only the most important data. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles[edit]

Subtropical-man, be careful. You have now made the same revert three times at the article Los Angeles. This is your 3RR warning that if you do it again you could be blocked for edit warring. Remember that edit warring is prohibited by Wikipedia even if you think you are right. Discussion at the article talk page will determine the outcome; if others agree with you, they will make the next revert. But you should not make it yourself. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop accusing other editors, in edit summaries and at Talk:Los Angeles, of “spamming” and “trolling” and “vandalism”.[24][25] This kind of name-calling is inappropriate and unhelpful, and it could get you in trouble if you keep it up. Just discuss the issue. And while you are at it, heed your own advice to other people about not repeating their own opinion over and over. You yourself have made a total of 110 edits to that talk page, the third-most of any editor. For comparison, IWI has made 55 and Castncoot has made 24. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to stop accusing other editors of "trolling" and "spamming" just because they disagree with you. You are still doing it, at other articles now, [26] as well as telling other editors to "grow up”[27] and "stop feeling sorry for themselves"[28]. You must STOP this kind of talk and work politely with other editors. Consider this a warning that you could be blocked for disruptive editing if you continue name-calling and accusing other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Mauve[edit]

Subtropical-man, I understand that English is not your first language so perhaps there has been some misunderstanding between us, but again, please be civil, assume good faith and do not make personal attacks. I have not "trolled" you, "spammed" you, and I most certainly am not stalking you.

Following our discussion at Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song) I noticed that you had proposed deletion for Kish Mauve (EP). I contested that prod because I don't think you made a good argument for deletion, and I posted my reasons for doing so at the AfD discussion. You keep saying that the article is not notable -- and perhaps you are right -- but you still need to properly explain why.

Since you have edited multiple articles related to the band Kish Mauve I felt justified in looking at some of your other recent edits; you should not have removed links to the EP article before it is deleted, and I think I was correct to revert you. I'm sorry if that offends you but there is nothing personal here, I simply wish to see that things are done properly. PC78 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference[edit]

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Could you change Order of capitals Canarias? Now the Page is protected so anonymous ip who cannot change any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canary88 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Islands capitals[edit]

Hello, what criteria do you use to change the order of the capitals of the Canary Islands?--87.223.173.157 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@87.223.173.157: - two criteria: alphabetically and in size (Las Palmas is the largest city). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the size is ridiculous, then would it be necessary to always name Tenerife before Gran Canaria? Well, Tenerife is bigger and more populated. Look at this article, are the capitals alphabetically ordered? My criterion is: Santa Cruz between 1833 and 1927 de iure the only capital of the Canary Islands (being thus the only Canarian city that has held such title officially).--95.20.103.120 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@95.20.103.120: - again - two criteria: alphabetically and by size, not only alphabetically or only by size. These are two criteria, in two cases, Las Palmas won. Sorry. Rest of you post is only your own opinion. This discussion is about capital city of Canary Islands, not about Africa or whole islands. Also, this is encyclopedia, we use simple criteria like alphabetically and by size, we do not analyze per Wikipedia:No original research. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is not put neither in alphabetical order nor by size. That criterion is not always used in Wikipedia.--95.20.103.120 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@95.20.103.120: - here is another situation. Political centres of South Africa have another funcions - Pretoria (executive), Bloemfontein (judicial), Cape Town (legislative). Las Palmas and Santa Cruz are typical capital cities, and we use typical criteria: alphabetically or/and by size. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for a Edit a thon in Chula Vista[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: A Edit a thon in Chula Vista.

When: Sunday 14 April 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:00PM PST / 1600

Where: Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

Invitation for a Edit a thon in San Diego[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: A Edit a thon in Mission Valley, San Diego.

When: Sunday 9 June 2019, 1:00PM PDT / 1300 until 3:00PM PDT / 1500

Where: Mission Valley Branch Library

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: DrMel (talk · contribs) & RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)[reply]

Invitation for a Edit a thon near Comic-Con International 2019[edit]

Who: All members of the public

What: A near Comic-Con International Edit a thon.

When: Sunday 21 July 2019, 1:00PM PDT / 1300 until 3:00PM PDT / 1500

Where: San Diego Central Library

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: DrMel (talk · contribs) & RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list.)

Brisbane skyline[edit]

Hi Subtropical-Man, I put up a new consensus on Brisbane talk page, to change the skyline image. Please let me know your thoughts on the new image.--Caltraser55 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical distribution of English speakers[edit]

I'm not sure what you're up to, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographical distribution of English speakers closed with List of countries by English-speaking population to be merged into Geographical distribution of English speakers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:. Geographical distribution of English speakers is new article (as small table) from November 2018‎, created by one user. Generally, administrator should be merged List of countries by English-speaking population to Geographical distribution of English speakers including history of changes (with 2,144 edits by 976 editors, from 2006-02-01 [29]). Of cource, there is consensus for merge, not for delete whole article or only create redirect without merge [30]. It is possible that it will be easier to move the table from Geographical distribution of English speakers to List of countries by English-speaking population and rename List of countries by English-speaking population to Geographical distribution of English speakers. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:, simply English:

Geographical distribution of English speakers is new article (from November 2018‎) created by one user [31]
List of countries by English-speaking population is large article and large cooperation (2,144 edits by 976 editors, from February 2006 [32]
there is consensus for merge, there is not consensus for delete whole article, there is not consensus for create redirect without merge [33]
administrator should merged List of countries by English-speaking population to Geographical distribution of English speakers including history of changes [34]
better and easier, move the table from Geographical distribution of English speakers [35] to List of countries by English-speaking population and rename article of List of countries by English-speaking population to Geographical distribution of English speakers.

Did you understand the content in 1-5 points? It is not good, but sufficient - my English is understandable now (second post). If not, please read two or three times. "I don't understand your English" is not exculpation :) Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you want done. But if you are contesting the AfD close, that belongs at WP:DELREV. Pinging me with something like "administrator should merged" is not going to help solve whatever problem you want solved because I don't understand your English. It doesn't make sense to me. You will need to find someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: - I do not question the closure of AfD. Did you not understand the contents in all 5 points? My English is weak, but is understandable. If not don't understand, please read two or three times. If you still do not understand, the problem is not my English, maybe you do not understand Wikipedia's terms like licence or/and history of changes. My text of "administrator should merged article...." is simply, administrator has the option / tool for integrate history of changes from primary article with history of changes from second article. After integrated both history of changes, new article (Geographical distribution of English speakers) are shown as new edits in article of List of countries by English-speaking population. Later article of List of countries by English-speaking population should rename to final name of Geographical distribution of English speakers.

I see two solutions:

we move table from new article of Geographical distribution of English speakers to old article of List of countries by English-speaking population, and rename article of List of countries by English-speaking population to new name of "Geographical distribution of English speakers".
someone asks the administrator for integrate history of changes of both articles.

Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, but I'm adding you to my list of users who pings I will now ignore. I told you to find someone else, and you're still pinging me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation[edit]

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Perth into Climate of Perth. 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) 12:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charter of European Rural Communities[edit]

Can you specify why was this edit undid from Nadur page and why you write it shouldn't be added to any page? I really don't understand it.

FromCzech (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global city, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (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) 08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Subtropical-man

I have a question to you (Polish is my native language but I do not speak English pretty well). Could you see here? What do you think about this transtaltion from PLwiki? Currently I am having hard time to get this article better because of I can not write in English in literary way and I do not know mechanism of ENwiki quit good which is other than on Polish Wikipedia. Anyway the article is nearly already. Could you help me improve the three references and describtion of the photos? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lets reach a consensus then[edit]

Hi, I'm here because I do not agree with some of the points you made about the climate data for Barcelona. First lets clear out some things I do find are valid points that you said: I do agree with you on the fact that Can Bruixa is closer to the actual city center than the airport and is probably (or would be) more suitable to define the city itself than by the airport.

But the fact of the matter is that data from Can Bruixa is not a 30 year data, it's only been recorded for 24 years, not because there is a rule or guideline but because it isn't a fair comparison to the other cities, do you really think Barcelona as almost the same average temperature as Valencia? It's the same thing with Cartagena, you can't just say it is the warmest city in continental europe just because it was so in 2014 (BTW I had to edit that to make that clear).

We both know that the real average temperature is closer to 16 / 16.5 °C than to 18.2 °C.

Another thing is that the Can Bruixa data (besides not being measured as it should be for 30 years) doesn't add the extremes and it's overall more incomplete.

So I think when comparing the two completely diferent datas, having the data that really represents the city is more important than it´s real proximity to the city center.

So what I'm proposing is to keep both of the data in the main article of the city, doesn't matter which order, because from my point of view that data from Can Bruixa shoudn't even be there in the first place and I know you have the same opinion about the airport data.

Can we reach a mutual concense?

Edit: It seems you haven't responded to my question for concensus so I can assume you're ignoring it, first of all let me be clear: If you think you have more rights than anyone in the wikipedia community you're wrong, don't try to scare me or threaten me as you will be reported.

Responding to your threats: No i'm not a Sockpuppet, I have my only one account that I use to debunk vandals like you that try to mold the truth by hiding/ ignoring certain facts.

Rome: I still do not understand why you keep removing the extremes, the weather box should have extremes, the extremes are from the same official source as the normals, the extremes do not ocupy a size large enough to be removed so my guess is that you're just vandalizing.

Unfortunately things don't always go as you would like to so, as you said, this must be discussed via concensus.

I will not remove anything you've put, instead I will keep the things I put (things you reverted for no actual good reason) and if you want to alter them you need to respond to my concensus first. Don't try to threaten me in my talk page again or you will be reported.

Since you did have an explanation (although you didn't explain why with an example) for the article of Rome I'm going to leave it as it is and let you do whatever you intend to (remove the extremes) if that causes a problem on the size of the article for mobile users (I supose it's that because you did not explain again) I'm not against it at all.

Now for Barcelona you still haven't responded or tried to discuss with me a concensus, maybe because I'm new to editing on the wikipedia. But you have to keep in mind one thing: I have the same rights to editing as you do and ,again, this will only be solved via concensus.

You're saying that I started edit-wars and use personal attacks against experienced users (which I clearly don't, I don't remember even reporting you, or threatning you, only self-defense statements) as if I do that with other editors, this only has 2 subjects, you and me and this only started because you had a diferent opinion and did not want to discuss it via concensus.

It's faccinating how you keep warning me about reporting and concensus but still haven't done anything to improve the situation.

IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE IT, DISCUSS IT VIA CONCENSUS.

These entries should be signed by striking the tilde key four times. It is impossible to figure out who is saying what. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Changes[edit]

Hi, to answer your questions the first change for Setubal was just about rounding up the numbers like it should be rounded (to the decimals), the 2nd change for Valencia was just about a minimally incorrect value to the source linked, it is not redundant or controversial, it's just a small error that needed to be fixed because it's against the source, official values from AEMET. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sydney[edit]

Please read Talk:Sydney#RfC notes and my introduction at the RfC where I mentioned "This RfC is an attempt to settle the protracted dispute evident at ANI" with links. In other circumstances your comments (1 + 2 + 3) might be regarded as a little inappropriate for a talk page, but not a big deal. However, in the context of a battle that has ground on for a very long time, and which has wasted significant time at WP:ANI, comments with text like "you haven't been able to understand a simple thing for years" are not permissible. I won't bother removing them but I will issue a block if there are any further comments about contributors rather than content. If two groups of editors are arguing, saying that an opponent is not able to understand stuff is a content-free slogan because they can say the same in reply. The only way to resolve the issue is to argue why a montage is great, or why it is bad. I do not want more time wasted on this issue and hope there will be no need for further interaction regarding this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coral Sea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using extremes in places with separate climate pages.[edit]

They shouldn't be added if a separate climate page exists, right? I remember that a moderator told this to us and we've been applying this rule for so many time along with many other Wiki users.

Now someone is adding the extremes and the humidity in the page Valencia albeit the page Climate of Valencia exists, they shouldn't be there, right? I have reverted the changes once but they have been added again. What do you think? They should be there or not? I think they don't as there is a separate climate page, at least that's what I have been told before. --TechnicianGB (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB: - Yes, They shouldn't be added if a separate climate page exists. User:Benfxmth doesn't know that propaably. I wrote to him. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with the same troll/vandal that is using tons of accounts and static IPs to vandalize mainly Italian climates but also another ones.[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello Subtropical Man, I have found something that you may have noticed as well. There is a troll that is using tons of new accounts and static IPs (all from Bruxelles - Belgium) to vandalize climate pages, as well as most Italian cities to make them look much warmer than they are in fact, making edits increasing their temps by 3-4ºC with no sources obviously, as well as making fake edits on other countries decreasing or increasing their temps as well.

Here you got an example 62.235.4.172 (talk · contribs) or 62.235.5.146 (talk · contribs) it's obviously the same as (Redacted)

And i'm suspecting of 2 other accounts, you might know them as well, for vandalizing and putting fake data in Italian cities to make them look much warmer than they really are while vandalizing other places as well, either by increasing their averages, or by decreasing them, or by inserting fake data or unreliable sources. Can you watch with me the pages of the relevant Italian cities just in case if this happens again?

The same user is always putting extremes were they don't belong, so we probably know already about who we are talking about, although he's using so many accounts and different IPs that it's impossible to control them all. He's claiming himself a Portuguese but his IPs all come from Belgium, and the edit pattern is the same always, focusing on putting fake data on Italian cities. The same that also inserted fake data all over Brussels climate. Should be warn an administrator to ban that certain range of IPs or to protect some specific articles? Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB:, This person uses many accounts:

(Redacted)
Average Portuguese Joe (talk · contribs) (100%)
Matthewmorrison34 (talk · contribs) (propably)

the same editing scheme, editions in similar articles. I can't say that these accounts and IP from Belgium is the same person or not. Unfortunately, if its editions are not vandalism, we cannot reported him for blocking in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You can report the use of multiple accounts who create controversial changes in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Eventually, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Unfortunately, at the period I have very limited time, and I can't edit of Wikipedia regularly - so I can't help much. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: Thanks for the information. Let's warn it on the administrators noticeboard. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were right. As seen in the page Alicante we can confirm that the anonymous IP from Belgium that are editing are the same as Matthewmorrison34 (talk · contribs) and Average Portuguese Joe is not guilty. But there is another user on the Wiki that it's probably the same as the vandal IPs and that "Matthew" the same that edited Alicante and other Italian cities in the same way. Gotta make a sockpuppet investigation right now. Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man:, I would encourage you to see the vandalism that TechnicianGB is part of in the page Alicante. He is keeping a wrong claim and added a ridiculous source from an AIRPORT WEBSITE to support it. I went on the climate section of many Spanish cities and saw that he has falsified many weather boxes and climate sections. He has a bizzare obsession to continuously insert propaganda for Spain. On the page Alicante, I found myself completely in line with other users that already reverted his edits, and even copied something that another user said on my edit summary as it was COMPLETELY right. Despite this, TechnicianGB is vandalising the page and re-inserting that phrase. Pathetic.

@Matthewmorrison34: it's clear you're a sockpuppet and investigations will be held. Anyways, could you please enlighten us and show exactly the "falsified" weather boxes and climate sections you're talking about? I would really like to see which climate boxes did I "falsify" in "many Spanish cities" let's show the proof at least, because as far as I go, I only edit with official AEMET data but be my guest and enlighten us with your claims. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechincianGB:, you can carry out any investigation you want, as I am not in any way linked to a suckpuppetry. Also, I will enlighten you: on the Alicante page, the weather box does NOT match the AEMET source! You keep on saying that Alicante is the place with warmest winters in Europe with highs over 17 degrees C all year, but the AEMET source puts January at 16.7 (and many other months below what you put, February, March, April...)! And guess who reverts any edit to correct that, YOU! So instead of investigating me, I suggest you investigate your bizarre obsession, Junter. --Matthewmorrison24 (talk) 00:583, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewmorrison34: you are beyond delusional. I don't even know why do you have a personal problem with me as you are clearly mistaken. You said I used false data on "many Spanish cities" but can't provide any proof for it, nevertheless you aren't even able to check a single source as the Alicante climate data is actually accurate and official by AEMET^[1] January averages 17.0ºC in Alicante, 16.7ºC goes for Elche-Alicante airport which is within Elche and Alicante has a separate climate station, official as well, the one that is in the page of Alicante so basically your claims are false, you aren't even able to check a source and you are an obvious sockpuppet that uses Wikipedia to make personal attacks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechincianGB:, untrue. The source given is that of Alicante-Elche airport. The other is not official. Furthermore, places such as Limassol in Cyprus have much higher winter highs than Alicante, so your claim is not valid because of that either... and that is from the official Department of Meteorology in Cyprus. Why do you keep on putting a false claim then? Because you are vandalising the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limassol#Climate , http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/MS/MS.nsf/DMLclimet_reports_en/DMLclimet_reports_en?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=1

--Matthewmorrison24 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewmorrison34: The source given is that on the OFFICIAL AEMET station of Alicante as it's the main reference on the climate box, the same as I have shown in my prior edit. How is exactly not official? Also, as said before, read properly, it says mainland Europe, Cyprus is not in mainland Europe and geographically it's in the Middle East but nevertheless it says mainland and not Europe. So it's quite correct, in fact that source you just deleted says the same as I did, so it's even backed up by a source. But you just keep denying yourself and making personal attacks. I'm also still waiting to see "the many Spanish climates" I vandalize, since you didn't provide none, as you were trying to lie to Subtropical-man making these false claims, yet I still don't understand why as I don't even know you, and check the source again, the official AEMET station from Alicante does say 17.0ºC in January, you're mistaking the Elche-Alicante station with the Alicante one, they're not the same, and in the page of Alicante the one shown is the one from the city itself. If you don't like official data it's not my problem. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have the official AEMET station of Alicante, the same as in the Alicante climate box and the same I posted before, but since it seems you are too altered to even make a click (too busy going against me) here you go again: http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=8025&k=val but you did start an edit war and broke the 3 reversion rules in 24 hours so that must be reported. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Subtropical-man (talk · contribs) please listen to me, what you did is a tremendous amount of disrespect for a wikipedia user, would you like me to expose your facebook account online? What you're doing is stalking and ilegal and I could seriously report you to the police.

TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) and Subtropical-man (talk · contribs) Just so we can be clear: I had an account with my name in it (the now vanished one) and FOR THIS PRECISE REASON I decided to vanish to create other account with another name, Average Portuguese Joe, in May 2020. I AM NOT AFILIATED WITH ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS. User Matthewmorrison34 is doing some unaceptable edits which I undid if you had the time to see before you make assumptions and I actually left a message in his talk page regarding that. The only thing left now is an apology from you and your sheer disrespect. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Average Portuguese Joe:, I quote your post: "What you're doing is stalking and ilegal and I could seriously report you to the police" - you broke Wikipedia's rules, you can't scare the police other users. In addition, sharing a Facebook link is not punished[36], please think a little bit. What are the facts: you created an account, 27 April 2020‎ your account name changed to (Redacted). Now, you used account of User:Average Portuguese Joe. Many of your editions are controversial, it is only natural that other users are investigating in your case. If you hadn't created controversial editions, it wouldn't have been a matter. Simply. Stop creating editing wars, create controversial editions, use several accounts - there will be no grounds for investigating and collecting data about you. Simply. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: Do I need to repeat what I just said? First of all as I said I am only using one account, and that is Average Portuguese Joe (the vanished one doesn't exist anymore and I cannot go back to it even if I wanted to), stop relating me to other accounts which I'm against, I do not do controversial editions, just because sometimes you don't agree to what I write doesn't mean is controversial, I know what i'm writing, I have an official source. I see an error, I correct it. Most of the things I correct are simply small errors which don't correlate to the source given and most importantly I'm open for discussion and concensus. If you are not open for discussion and concensus about a topic that is your problem, not mine.

I though this problem would be solved with ease and respect but what you did was very disrespectfull. I don't want my username to be part of some troll/vandal with a belgian adress. If you have a problem with one of my edits please discuss it on my talk page. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Subtropical-man:, I did make some edits without appropriate sources, for example at the Brussels page, but since I received guidance on how to source, etc. all of my other edits have a source and are not at all vandalism. Also, I only have this account. It is TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) who vandalises data on Spanish pages to make them look warmer. For example, check the history on Alicante, in which I took off the sentence about how similar the climate was to Los Angeles as it didn't have a source and is not true, and he reverted the edit. Also, the data on Alicante does not match the AEMET given source. Furthermore, it is user:TechnicianGB that threatened you regarding the police and not User:Average Portuguese Joe. Regards, user:Matthewmorrison34

Matthewmorrison34, you are laughably inept at your little game. Average Portuguese Joe threatened Subtropical-man with these words: "I could seriously report you to the police" in this edit, as anyone can plainly see. You are obviously the same editor as (Redacted) and Average Portuguese Joe. Carlstak (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now that I saw that edit I do agree that it is User:Average Portuguese Joe. I thought that it was user:TechnicianGB threatening user:Subtropical-man, but that is because User:Average Portuguese Joe deleted what he wrote and I only saw the "would you like me to expose your facebook account online?" without context and thought it was a threat instead of a response. That being said, I have NOTHING to do with the account User:Average Portuguese Joe and don't understand where you come from with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmorrison34 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If editors believe Matthewmorrison34, is the same editor Average Portuguese Joe, I suggest they open an SPI. As it stands, the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthewmorrison34 only claims a connect to 2 IPs. I saw Average Portuguese Joe was reverting Matthewmorrison34 so if there is socking he there's is clearly an active attempt to mislead, a serious violation. (Note I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the allegations.) Also I'd like to remind editors that per WP:OUTING and WP:Harassment, even an editor has made efforts to remove any connection to a real name they should not be repeating it anywhere on Wikipedia. Note also if an editor has never linked to a Facebook account, liking to it is a clear violation of our WP:Outing policy and is likely to result in blocks if repeated. To be clear this applies even if an editor is still editing under their real name. The editor needs to reveal on Wikipedia the specific information you are revealing before you are allowed to mention it here, so an editor using their real name is no excuse to link to their Facebook page, or anything else associated with them outside Wikipedia except they have linked to that specific information. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: and @Nil Einne: let me tell you it's confirmed that Matthewmorrison34 (talk · contribs) is not only a sockpuppet but the same person as Weathertrustchannel (talk · contribs) which is known to have been used hundreds of different accounts between his IPs and his usernames. It seems now he's as active as in the good ol' days! I should recommend to you guys to also watch with me the main Italian and Spanish cities as he will probably return again to vandalize them both, making the Italian ones look much warmer than they actually are and making the Spanish ones look colder than they actually are, maybe he will try to edit again Greek cities or Brussels like he has done this month. We will see! --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course not Average Portuguese Joe, who remains unblocked. I don't personally have an interest in watching for those specific problems, but since it sounds like there are problems with sock on these articles, this is even more reason for you all to be on your best behaviour so you can do it. That means no questionable accusations of vandalism (maybe the claim of vandalism was correct given the connection to Weathertrustchannel but at least the example I looked at it looked like a simple content dispute over 2 different sources so it was hardlly obvious vandalism), and no outing. I would also suggest sock discussions be kept to a minimum outside appropriate places like SPI. I mean some limited discussion before opening an SPI or considering whether to open an SPI may be okay. But excessive discussion is likely to be a problem, as shown here where at least 2 editors appear to have false accused Average Portuguese Joe of being related to Matthewmorrison34. Maybe the first comment was okay, but frankly I don't see how User:Carlstak's comment was beneficial especially since they appeared to be just linking to what appears to be outing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late for this, but I never should have jumped in to this conversation. I withdraw my comment, which was not intended to highlight the outing; I didn't even notice that part, and I didn't link to it, I linked to Average Portuguese Joe's threat to "seriously report you [Subtropical-man] to the police". Nevertheless, I apologize for my mistake. Carlstak (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I knew he was a troll/sockpuppet not because of what he did today, but the other edits I was talking about in the ANI as I watched him (while he did these edits, he used 2 additional accounts as well, and as well at least 3 different IPs at the same time) but his edits from today were the final sign I needed to prove he's a sockpuppet, but I didn't think he would be Weathertrustchannel too, that's bizarre! I don't understand why someone would use hundreds of accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. It sounds so awkward!

About Average Portuguese Joe, I never blamed this guy and in fact you can check here that I said he was not guilty after doing further research. I am totally against outing as well. Have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed and redacted some things, primarily due to the facebook issue but also because a person is allowed to vanish and CLEANSTART without everyone digging into their past (and/or past usernames). I would advise Average Portuguese Joe to stay away from those areas that would make it too easy to "connect the dots" to their former account, given their valid concerns about privacy. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=8025&k=val

Your refusal to accept Northern Cyprus as a country and accusations of Vandalism[edit]

Dear, subtropical-man I have no intention of violating any policies or practices of this site. I have no interest in vandalism either. But, I find it hard to understand why would you refuse to recognize a country and completely ignore its existence. It may not be recognized by UN or most of the other countries in the world but that does not prevent it from being a country. Because this entity which you refuse to acknowledge legally as a country does not cease to exist as a de facto country just because you deny its existence. It is there, governing a territory of its own with a separate government that is democratically elected by the local population that lives there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and political decisions of states and UN should not motivate anyone to ignore the reality. There is a country located in the northern part of Cyprus, it may not be recognised by most of the states, but that doesn't change the reality of it being a real country with it's own government, population and territory. All the details about the recognition are included in the page of this country. If you are so against it being considered as a country why don't you edit it's page Northern Cyprus? Because there it is clearly defined as a country even if it is not recognised by many states. It is a "de facto state". I don't find the argument "it is only recognised by Turkey" or "it is not a country" very convincing. All the states in the world can come together and decide to recognize 2+2=5 as correct but that won't change the reality as it doesn't in Cyprus. There is a de facto state there which is also mentioned in it's own Wikipedia page too. You should dispute and edit that out too then. I feel that you might be motivated by your personal identity, ideology or other personal attachments in this matter and you might not be very neutral. Correct me if I am wrong and please further explain your opinion. --176.88.47.54 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@176.88.47.54: - you wrote:

"It may not be recognized by UN or most of the other countries in the world but that does not prevent it from being a country." - but it does not confirm that it is a country. In general, no one recognizes this as a state, so it can be universally considered that it does not exist as state. Simply.

"own government, population and territory" - this is joke? California in United States also has "own government, population and territory", but this is part of the United States. Queensland in Australia and very many regions also has "own government, population and territory". This is not argument.

In addition, the status of Northern Cyprus is debatable. Also, sources in article (not meets of the WP:INCITE) - users cannot interpret the facts at their discretion ("theoretically Northern Cyprus works like a state" is not synonymous of the word "is state").

Maybe, Northern Cyprus works like a state, however, this is not official state. This is region or simply - northern part of Cyprus - supported by most sources in the world - these are facts and these meets of the any rules of the Wikipedia! We will not insert controversial regions to article of Southern Europe, which officially!!! are not countries and which are debatable! Sorry.

PS. You are Turkish people [37], you have no neutrality or objectivity at all, you only use the Turkish point of view. I'm sorry, but it's not like the whole world are wrong and you are right. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before making personal attacks on other people, because they are Turkish, read more about what a sovereign state is. Is it forbidden to edit because people are Turkish? Be careful by making such racist attacks on other peoples before I report you. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish are a side in dispute. This is not "third opinion". IP 176.88.47.54 uses tricks to have the support of user with similar opinions. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Greek or are you a Greek Cypriot? Is that why you are so strongly opinionated? I don't mean to offend in any way. We are just persons and what is written here won't change anything in Cyprus or anywhere else in the world. You or I won't gain or lose anything. I try to approach this matter as neutrally as possible. But in my logic it is a fact that there is a country there with limited recognition and I say this sincerely I don't see this as an "opinion" or an "interpretation". We can't give or deny a political entity statehood here, there are established facts that this political body is elected by the local native population, it has territory, courts, police, an army, an education system, a taxation system, a parliament, a constitution, a healthcare system, it is recognized by at least one other sovereign state. Northern Cyprus itself is independent of Cyprus de facto. In all areas. That is what Northern Cyprus declared. Why should all this be ignored? The reality is there is a country there. You say that it is recognized by no one but you also said that Turkey recognized it. Perhaps you deny Turkey's statehood too? I suggest you to edit Turkey too. If that is your opinion. Truth and reality does not change even when no one recognizes them. California is not simply just a "region" of United stateS. It is a state of many under a federal government. The same goes for Queensland too. Cyprus doesn't have federalism which is a system when multiple states come together independent in their interior and federally united when dealing with foreign powers and issues that affect all the countries within the federal union. Even Republic of Cyprus does not claim the North to be a federal state under its governance. I do not interpret anything as simple facts are not interpretations. You cannot dispute any of the facts. Such as Northern Cyprus having territory, courts, police, an army, an education system etc. There is no such thing as "official" state, no state has to be supported by any foreign power to be a state. According to the Montevideo Convention "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. " A permanent population = 326.000~ /defined territory= 3.355km2 /government= there is a president, prime minister, a parliament /capacity to enter into relations with the other states = Turkey, Libya, Azerbaijan, Cyprus itself, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and others... According to the Montevideo convention there is no doubt that Northern Cyprus is a state. There is a no theory, Northern Cyprus is country and a state in practice. Foreign states' ideas or recognition cannot be considered as a "source" to give or deny statehood to any state because this is not United Nations this is Wikipedia. United Nations is motivated by political aims. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia would not be motivated or limited by politics, it would present the de facto and de jure situation it would also present the opinions and official stances of other states but it would not accept these as universal truth or be limited and constrained by them in any way. --176.88.47.54 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no arguments. "Northern Cyprus works like a state" is not synonymous of the word "is state". There are many autonomous regions in the world that have similar meaning and operation as Northern Cyprus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I will not use a template for that. Re:

start thinking and stop making a trash from the encyclopedia.

WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL.

It is a discussion & voting only, not mainspace edits.

Stop it please. Zezen (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warner Bros. Movie World, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misgendering is violence[edit]

Misgendering is a form violence, it causes living, breathing people to commit suicide. Your edit, [38], is hurtful. Stop it.--Plunging (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing nonsense. Margot doesn't mind the name Michał. Besides, she is a non-binary person. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: - how about this?

Plunging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

account created practically only for vandalism: delete sections from article, delete sources, edit-warring. 99% edits of this user are destructive edits. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub - You've made 14 reverts all within a 2-3 hour span so you're genuinely lucky you weren't blocked for longer!. It may be better to read WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR instead of blaming others. You've been here long enough to know 14 reverts all within 3 hours is unacceptable. –Davey2010^Talk 16:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but user Plunging have made a similar number of reverts in a similar time, so why only me? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the principal antagonist here and this is not your first block for edit warring. Between your flagrant violations of 3RR and WP:BRD, coupled with some of your comments in the discussion you are indeed fortunate that I am the admin who showed up here. I intensely dislike blocking people. But be warned, you are perilously close to an indefinite block. Tread very carefully. The other parties have been warned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ad Orientem:, I know I did wrong. However, this is the result of a lack of appropriate tools. Any new user, vandal, troll can do what he wants. The user can delete sections with sources 10 times, and a normal experienced user can do nothing. On page of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism can't report such things because it's debatable (is vandalism or not). Applications on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring they take too long, sometimes even days. Am i angry? Yes. Why? Simple: why the administrator didn't edit like you did earlier? Restoration of the pre-edit-war version + warnings users, encourage discussion and consensus before introducing new changes in article - these are good methods. Why were they not applied before? Why is the experienced user vulnerable to the new user-vandal who deleted whole sections with sources without consensus? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:BRD. The moment your additions were reverted the next stop should have been the talk page. No further action on your proposed changes should have taken place w/o consensus. The page has now been protected so only extended confirmed editors can edit there. I have also requested additional oversight at WP:ANI. But the bottom line is that you edit warred instead of seeking consensus after your initial edits were reverted. Yes, there is blame to go around. But you started the edit war. That coupled with that fact that you have been previously blocked for this behavior is why you are blocked, yet again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. You need to check your political biases at the door. If your purpose here is to advance a social or political agenda you are going to end up blocked indefinitely. See WP:NPOV, WP:AGENDA and WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no political biases. Please don't offend me. By the way: user:Plunginge xtremely (99%) agitates towards the promotion / defense of LGBT, you don't see it? Even Steve Wonder will notice it. If you think the destructive action by user:Plunging is good then you should be blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia should be neutral. See WP:NPOV, WP:AGENDA and WP:RGW. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem:, you do not understand what I am writing about. I'm not asking to remove the block. I know and support WP:BRD. The problem lies elsewhere: another user has Wikipedia rules somewhere, he doesn't care about BRD. BRD is simple: new edit (delete all section by user:Plunging) + revert (my revert) = discuss cicle. So!!! So!!! So!!! Now you understand? The new user tried to push through his new changes at all costs. And what? are you giving him a warning? He got a warning 10 times. The user:Plunging deserved a block, especially since this user has almost no editing other than disruptive (99% is edit-wars, delete sections from article, delete data with sources). You do one thing with your behavior: you encourage to be a vandal. I can create a new account, I can delete data with sources - even whole sections, and if an experienced user withdraws me, he will be blocked, but I not! Thank you for the justice, better to be a vandal in WIkipedia, it pays more. You create such Wikipedia, congratulations :( Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to have a number of issues that render you incapable of editing neutrally here (You wrote to Ad Orientem that "user:Plunginge xtremely (99%) agitates towards the promotion / defense of LGBT, you don't see it? Even Steve Wonder will notice it. If you think the destructive action by user:Plunging is good then you should be blocked indefinitely."), then given that this is a collaborative encyclopedia I have blocked you indefinitely. You may appeal through the usual channels. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: and @Black Kite:, I'm sorry for using badly chosen words, indeed, they were unnecessary. I was angry because a user:Plunginge who made a similar number of undos did not get any penalty. I also felt angry that the article was secured too late. I was disgusted with the whole situation. I couldn't cope with the situation.

The last period have been difficult for me, removing content with sources without consensus and edit-war completely upset me. My mistake to make so many undos. I regret. I regret the edit-war and the words I used. I want to constructively develop Wikipedia.

Please restore the previous length of block. I promise to improve my behavior. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem. I warned you above that you were dangerously close to being indeffed. I noted what appears to me, and apparently others, that you have a pattern of editing that favors certain social/political views. Your politics are of zero concern or interest to me. But when you bring your politics into the project, we have a problem. And you pretty much shoved that under everybody's nose with that last post. I am going to defer to Black Kite as the last admin to block you, on the question of whether or not to unblock. But FWIW if it were solely my call, I would only agree to unblock you if you agreed to a ~~one year~~ indefinite topic ban, appealable after one year, from all pages and discussions broadly construed touching on LGBTQ issues. But again I am recusing myself from the decision here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I don't think it will be necessary, the LGBT topic is not a problem for me. I don't edit articles in this topic. The subject of Margot is something else entirely. I'm from Poland, Margot is from Poland, it was loud case in Poland. Most of the media in Poland described her as a person arrested for committing a crime, most of the media in Poland uses the name Michał for Margot[39]. Even on Polish Wikipedia does not have an article about Margot, she was considered a noncyclopedical/non-notable person. I just have a Polish point of view on this matter, that's all. I not have a pattern of editing that favors certain social/political views. This is a misunderstanding. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am assuming you would agree to the topic ban, understanding that would include biographical articles of any person, living or dead, who has been reliably identified as an LGBT person. I suggest you await Black Kite's return. He has been pinged twice so I'm sure he will be along eventually. Bear in mind admins have lives and demands in the real world and we don't live on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think topic ban for LGBT is not a good solution. The matter is simple: out of the question of Margot, do I make some controversial editions in articles about LGBT? Not! So, from a formal point of view, the proposal of LGBT topic ban is unreasonable. Of course, someone can tell: what a difference - after all, I don't edit articles about LGBT. The explanation is also simple: apart from unjustified bureaucratic issues, beyond creating new redundant constraints - put yourself in this situation. Assuming you don't edit articles about parrots, you were banned for a edit-war once in one article about parrots, would you like the ban for topic of parrots? The proposal of topic ban is unreasonable. I can promise I will try to avoid LGBT topic (I'm not interested in this topic, so it won't be a problem), however, without unnecessary bureaucracy like official topic ban. Yes, I know that admins have lives and demands in the real world and don't live on here :) Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving this to BK. But I do think you are misreading the situation. You have been indefinitely blocked for good reason and you are asking to be unblocked. This is not a negotiation. If BK even agrees to consider your request he is likely going to lay down the terms and conditions. To which your only available reply choices will be "I agree" or "I don't." I have said all that I think needs to be said on my part and am done here. Good luck wherever life takes you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right place for a comment, but since you - Subtropical-man - are in a learning mood I'll take the opportunity to point out that while you were doing what got you banned, you also posted 'Vandalism' tags on my talk page and at least 2 others'. That was sheer bullying on your part Sub. As you can see, according to WP rules, you were the person who could best have been called a vandal here. Please collaborate in future. Mam nadzieje, ze w koncu skumales cos z tego. Narka. Malick78 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a lot of mistakes in the subject of this article of Margot. The actions - the situation in this article completely upset me. I should have let go much earlier. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Subtropical-man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got blocked because I've made a some of mistakes in the article of Margot. The situation in this article completely upset me. I should have let go much earlier. I know. Although I was asked several times to appeal the blockade on my e-mail, I decided to take a long break - I needed it. I think a "break" of 8 months is sufficient. I'd love to go back and edit Wikipedia constructively. Subtropical-man (talk 20:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per commitment below not to scrupulously follow 3RR, giving another chance, nine months later. Go Phightins! 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Not familiar with the circumstances that led up to this block (beyond reading the AN/I thread), but working through the category of unblock requests and this one seemed presumptively worth looking into further. I can't speak to any email unblock requests, but any thoughts about the possibility of an unblock here with a relatively short leash about the areas that led up to the block? Go Phightins! 12:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to decline this unblock for not addressing the reasons for the initial block. I did not notice your response as you did not place the unblock request on-hold. I will leave this to you to handle. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!:, HighInBC and other. From beginning I had no contact with user Black Kite. In September 2020 (after blocking), I wrote a message to Black Kite, got no reply. That's why I decided to use a standard template of Unblock, for to take care the matter by independent administrators. In May 2021, User:Go Phightins! ping the user[40], also unanswered. Clearly, user Black Kite has (long time) abandoned the case. Although a long time has passed, I remember a lot about that incident. Yes, I was waging a edit-war in the article of Margot (about dozen reverts), administrator Ad Orientem blocked me for 72 hours - reason: Edit warring - please see log of block [41]. Administrator not blocked other user who also aggressively engaged in the edit-war (User:Plunging [42]). I felt injustice. I wrote/reply unkindly to Ad Orientem, I was nervous... and Black Kite increased block from 72-hours to indefinite [43]. The case is not complicated, the links are there, anyone can check it. Personally, I think I did it wrong, but considering the circumstances - I deserved a block for a week. about 9 months have passed, I would like to come back and edit Wikipedia constructively. Please also note that I am not a vandal which destroys on Wikipedia (and this is how I was treated), I has made over 35,000 contributions to Wikimedia projects. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subtropical-man, You have been blocked three times now for edit warring and the final time, your response was to blame other editors and then act rather aggressively towards the blocking administrator, Ad Orientem. I am inclined—after nine months—to give you another shot here, but even in this latest message, you discuss other editors' behavior quite a bit and only briefly address your own. Do you, unequivocally, commit to following the three-revert rule no matter what other editors may do, cognizant that a future violation will almost certainly lead to another lengthy indefinite block? Go Phightins! 15:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go Phightins!, Ok, I commit to following the three-revert rule no matter what other editors may do. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked your account and removed rollback as a gentle nudge to be careful with reverting other editors. Any administrator may re-grant rollback at WP:PERM if they are satisfied that it would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Please do endeavor to stay away from areas that are prone to lead you towards the type of frustration that brings on edit warring. Best regards, Go Phightins! 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AC Hotel[edit]

The article AC Hotel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] ttp://www.lanzarote.climatemps.com/

[3] ttp://es.climate-data.org/location/881069/

[4] ttp://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=8025&k=val

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]