User talk:Jpcase

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around, and apparently you should ask user:Samwalton9. DS (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks! I just heard from Samwalton9 at Wikipedia talk:HighBeam. --Jpcase (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start an article on A. J. Gil, then do so. Please do not distort the television article with excessive biographical details. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

American Idol (season 1)

article is because there's a contingent of editors who are strongly opposed to having standalone articles on low-ranking Idol finalists. I've been told in the past that finalists below 3rd place or so should only have their own articles if they've received significant news coverage separate from their association with American Idol. All other finalists, I've been told, should have their articles merged with the seasons of the show on which they appeared.

Gil's situation is sort of a strange one, since he absolutely meets the

GNG

standards for having his own article, and he's continued to have a music career after leaving the series, but almost all of the significant news coverage that he's received has been in relation to American Idol. There are several news articles about Gil's starring role in the film Destination Fame - and those might confer individual notability on him. But those articles are primarily about Destination Fame itself, not Gil specifically. So I'm not really sure - there don't seem to any clear standards on how much non-Idol-related coverage is necessary before an Idol-finalist is considered notable enough to have a standalone article.

For Gil's music career after Idol, I've had to rely mostly on primary sources (which are allowed on Wikipedia, but can't confer notability) and a few short blurbs. So if a standalone article on Gil is just going to be AfDed eventually, then I'd much rather not go through the effort of creating one. I do feel that the information on Gil's career ought to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia though, so I tried incorporating it into the season one article sort of as an experiment - but I agree that it looks awkward there. Any advice? Do you think that a standalone article on Gil would be worth creating? --Jpcase (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say his notability is marginal. Yes, it is possible that any article created may be nominated for AfD, but that is a risk you'll have to take. I don't see anywhere else you can put his biography details. Many Idol contestant articles have been nominated before and survived e.g Pia Toscano, Katie Stevens. A likely outcome of any AfD is that it may end up as a redirect, e.g. Curtis Finch, Jr, but if it helps, AJ Gil may have a better chance of survival than Curtis Finch. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Luigi has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie! Yes, it was a bit stale (~4 years ago), but a cookie's a cookie.

Anyway, I reread your comment expressing interest in my plans going forward with Dexter's Laboratory. A few weeks ago, I made a request for peer review that still has no responses. Care to take a look? Or do you know anyone who would? Thanks, Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper Luigi: Hey, it's really nice to hear from you again! It makes me nostalgic for our days working on Ed, Edd n Eddy together. :) I probably don't have enough time to do a peer review, but I did take a quick look at the article, and overall, it's impressive. The prose reads very well. My only major concern is that the article seems too short - especially the reception section (I know that Ed, Edd n Eddy made it to FA without much in the reception section, but honestly, if I wasn't so busy with other projects, I would go back and make a lot of improvements to that article).

If you haven't already, you should check out some news archiving sites like

WP:Resource Exchange

. I imagine that you could probably find some great sources through any of these services.

One other small suggestion - I noticed a lot of "missing url" notifications in the references section, all of which seem to be for Amazon pages. It looks like the url link is actually included in the ASIN, but you might want to change the formatting for those references, just to get rid of those red notifications.

Looks like you're doing good work - best of luck on getting the article to FA! --Jpcase (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpcase. 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

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]

On

Seahawks Stadium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/AJ Gil. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, AJ Gil), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Album Cover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in

WP:FILMSCORE

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above also apppies to File:Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil (Original Motion Picture Score) Album Cover.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rollercoaster (Jim Verraros album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2005 pop-rock/dance album Rollercoaster, by former American Idol finalist Jim Verraros, was inspired by the music of George Michael and Green Day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rollercoaster (Jim Verraros album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rollercoaster (Jim Verraros album)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to just his other films, all untagged:

@SNAAAAKE!!: Just because those articles don't have tags, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have tags. Most articles about films have short productions sections, but that's simply because editors haven't taken the time to work on those articles yet. The goal should always be to expand articles with as much notable information as can be sourced. The production section for that particular article can still be expanded significantly, so it seems worthwhile to keep the tag - but do whatever you think is best. --Jpcase (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They sometimes don't even have production sections. If it pains you so much, go and work on it, as clearly no one else is going to ever do it for you (seriously, no is going to do it, it's Wikipedia in 2019). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNAAAAKE!!: I really don't care very much, which is why I'm telling you to go ahead and do whatever you think is best. But again, just because some articles have less production information than this one, doesn't mean that this article's production section shouldn't be expanded. There are different tiers of article-quality - this isn't at the bottom, but it's definitely not at the top. And yeah, maybe no one will ever decide to work on improving this particular article, but the article still has the potential to be improved upon. --Jpcase (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated

@Wumbolo: Hi - thanks for letting me know. I hadn't realized that any three reverts on the same page over 24 hours would be considered edit warring. I had assumed that edit warring only described reverting the same editor multiple times or reverting the same content multiple times. I can see that the policy applies in more situations than I had realized, so I've gone ahead and restored the content that had been removed by my most recent revert. --Jpcase (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but note that the problem is in four reverts or more. Three reverts are the upper limit of acceptable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Okay, thanks for clarifying! I just want to make sure though - it's okay for me to continue reverting edits like the one I reverted here, right? I'll hold off on reverting anything less serious than that, but if content is added that could be considered libelous, I'd like to be able to revert it as soon as I see it. --Jpcase (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Defamatory content has no place on Wikipedia. However, content merely being unsourced is often not an excuse, so reporting it to

WP:RPP is safer than risking a block. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Jpcase, please don't change other editor's comments on talk pages. I made what I believed was an uncontroversial refactor of the discussion and explained the refactor. You reverted the refactor and removed my expository comments from the discussion. The proper way handle that situation is to adjust the refactor and explain your reasoning in the discussion thread under my comment on the refactor.

@Sparkie82: Apologies about that - I had thought that I was only reverting the change you made to the discussion's title; I didn't realize I removed your comment as well. And if you want to change the title again, feel free. I thought that sticking with a more concise title would be better, but I don't feel very strongly about what title is used. --Jpcase (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing how much detail to include the Ralph Northam article and you abruptly made changes to section under discussion and stopped discussing the issue. Please discuss the issue until we have reached a consensus before making any changes. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for catching that! The category that I had tried to add does actually exist, but there was a typo. I re-added it without the typo. :) --Jpcase (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning on doing an FAC for SpongeBob SquarePants before at least the time that the third SpongeBob movie comes up, so it might be the TFA the day it's released. I feel like it is on its way towards becoming a FA but I wanted to see what you thought about its prospects seeing how you copyedited the article before and commented on the last FAC. Thanks, Jerry (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JerrySa1: Hey, thanks for the message! I haven't been on Wikipedia very much lately, and so I haven't kept up-to-date with the most recent changes to the SpongeBob article. I'll look things over sometime this week, hopefully in the next few days, and get back to you with my thoughts. --Jpcase (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I notice you have been making edits to the article

I look forward to reading your comments/rebuttals to my points, and we can see where to go after that. Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Would you like examples where songs with different lyrics have been covered in the same article, rather than cat'd on redirect? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: Apologies in advance for how long this response has turned out. I'm...quite aware that I can drone on sometimes. But hopefully my answers below are helpful. :)

Thanks for the followup! And as noted in my edit summary, I have no serious objections to reworking how these categories are presented, if that's the route you want to go.

The answers to questions #1 and #4 should be fairly apparent upon reading the ¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes! article. "The Three Caballeros" is a 1944 song. "¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" is a 1941 song. They're different songs that share a melody. I guess that the technical way of putting this would be to say that "The Three Caballeros" is a contrafactum of "Ay, Jalisco", in the same way that "What Child Is This?" is a contrafactum of "Greensleeves" or in the way that "Hotaru no Hikari" is a contrafactum of "Auld Lang Syne".

When I created the "Ay, Jalisco" article, I decided to add a section there devoted to "The Three Caballeros", rather than creating separate articles for the two songs. There's an argument to be made that the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article should be spun off into its own standalone article. But the "Ay, Jalisco" article is already pretty close to a stub as it is, which is why, when I created it nine years ago, I decided to simply combine the two songs into a single article. What I did back then made sense at the time, but I'll concede that it may not have been the best approach. If you're interested in splitting the two songs off into their own articles, then there's sure to be some sourcing out there that hasn't been utilized yet, which could help ensure that neither of the standalone articles are super short stubs.

As for the Ray Gilbert category, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. But that's the only category shared by the two pages. My goal when I set up the categories for these pages was to only include categories that actually apply to "Ay, Jalisco" in the "Ay, Jalisco" article and to then include categories that only apply to "The Three Caballeros" in the redirect. So -

If someone were to see "Ay, Jalisco" mentioned in Category:Songs from The Three Caballeros, then that person would get confused, because "Ay, Jalisco" isn't a song from The Three Caballeros. On the other hand, if a movie's title song were to be missing from a category explicitly devoted to songs from that movie, then the category would be weirdly incomplete, don't you agree? That's why I added the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category to the "Three Caballeros" redirect page, rather than to the "Ay, Jalisco" article. Which seems like the most useful and least confusing way of presenting this information to anyone viewing the category.

Actually, now that you've pointed it out, I have no idea why I included the Ray Gilbert category in the "Ay, Jalisco" article, because Ray Gilbert didn't write the lyrics to "Ay, Jalisco"; he only wrote the lyrics to "The Three Caballeros".

Again, if you feel strongly that moving categories like "1944 songs" or "Songs from the Three Caballeros" out of the redirect and into the target article would be a better way of presenting this information, then I'm open to going that route, although I'm not exactly sure what would be accomplished by doing that.

As for what should or shouldn't be considered a defining category? I guess that's kind of a subjective call. I'll assume that you're at least a little familiar with both of the songs that we're talking about, but in case you're not, the entire focus of "The Three Caballeros" is on friendship. If friendship isn't a defining characteristic of that song, then personally, I'm not sure that friendship would be a defining characteristic of any song - in which case, why bother even having such a category? But I'm going to be honest with you - and I realize that this is kind of an ironic way of ending such a long ramble - I don't have very strong feelings on what categories are used for these pages. I do think we should take care not to make the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category seem incomplete or confusing. But otherwise, I'm going to give you space to make your own decisions on these categories. --Jpcase (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, that was wordy, especially when the only message was ‘they are different songs’ which is patently untrue, and I would vehemently oppose any splitting because there are 2 sets of lyrics. The history and connection is part of the development of the song and it does not benefit readers to separate. I give you two examples where different lyrics do not mean a different song/article,

Baía (Song)

(I hope you appreciate the irony of me quoting this one). There are many other examples where they have not been separated. Do you need more?

Your claim for 3Cabs being a 1944 song are incorrect, at best, it is a 1944 lyric, a category that does not exist.

Ray Gilbert should be listed at the target, where there is confirming text confirmation. Anybody looking at Ray Gilbert lyrics will want to be taken straight there, not round the roundabout.

A defining characteristic is, according to

reliable sources commonly and consistently define^[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio

’

Take your time, but I am interested in your follow up comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: This could be a mistaken impression on my part, caused by the limitations of written communication, but I'm sensing a bit of tension here; and if there is in fact tension, then I'm not exactly sure where it's coming from. I've done my best to explain the reasoning behind decisions that I made many years ago. And as I've said, where's there's disagreement, I'm generally going to defer to you. So I hope we can keep things cordial. Apologies if I've misread your sentiments.

My understanding has always been that a "song" is the combination of a specific set of words with a specific melody - and that whenever new lyrics are written to an old melody, a new song is created. This is why, as I've pointed out, "What Child Is This?" is considered to be a separate song from "Greensleeves". If there's a difference between the "Ay, Jalisco/Three Caballeros" relationship and the "What Child Is This/Greensleeves" relationship, then it's unclear to me. In both cases, one song is a contrafactum of the other.

It doesn't appear that there's any one, consistent way of handling contrafactums on Wikipedia. As you've pointed out, in some cases, a contrafactum shares an article with the song that it drew its melody from, but both of the contrafactums that I've given as examples have their own standalone articles. It seems that if two songs with a shared melody are both highly notable, then creating standalone articles for each of them is the best way to go. Whereas if both songs are only somewhat notable, going with a single, combined article might be preferable - which is the approach that I took with the "Ay, Jalisco" article and also the approach that I took when I created the "Na Baixa do Sapateiro / Baía" article. I'm not saying that we have to split anything; I only said that I wouldn't oppose a split approach.

If anyone looking at the Ray Gilbert category were to click on "The Three Caballeros", they wouldn't be taken to the redirect; they would be immediately redirected to the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article. I'm not sure why that would pose a problem.

I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline against using categories in redirect pages; if there is, then yes, we should go ahead and remove all of those categories from the "Caballeros" redirect. If there isn't, then I'm not sure why sourcing used in the target page shouldn't apply to the redirect page. It doesn't seem that text or references should be required in the redirect to support the fact that the redirect is about a song featured in The Three Caballeros. The text and sourcing to support that fact is contained in the target page. With regards to "songs about friendship", there doesn't appear to be anything in the target page discussing that aspect of the song, so I have no problem with removing that category - although I assume that the appropriate sourcing could be found and added.

Apologies for the length of my responses. I don't want to take up your time with lengthy discussion, but you've raised several issues, and I don't want to leave anything unaddressed. --Jpcase (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just started looking through

WP:INCOMPATIBLE --Jpcase (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I note your comment that you feel I might be more aggressive than necessary. I apologise. These discussions get me down! I shall walk away from the discussion for a day or two and will not alter the redirect unless we have spoken further. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: I appreciate that and respect your willingness to hear out my concern. Thank you :)

I totally understand how online disagreements can be stressful. It's always my goal to engage with everyone on Wikipedia respectfully, but I've made enough missteps in online conversation over the years to know how easy it can be to unintentionally upset someone. I don't think that every disagreement needs to be an argument, so I'm happy to continue discussing all of this with you, if you'd like - so long as we can both make an effort to keep the discussion from turning confrontational. All the best! --Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try again. On reflection I suspect the primary discussion between us is whether we are talking about one or two songs. The connection between the Mexican melody and the English lyrics are an important development and I think readers will like it all being in the same place (some will ignore too, but that is their right). This is pretty much in line with the long and arduous discussions we had to introduce

WP:SONGCOVER

where each opposer stood on their ground that their favourite band had added something to the cover that needed a title page (but not much else).

Obviously having put both parts together, you fundamentally agree with me and it is only how we deal with individual, not quite simple, cases that there might be divergence. My opinion is, and remains unchanged, is that, where appropriate, any redirect should be where the text is, which means any confusion is also explained.

I am not going to pursue this discussion any further, so what happens next is up to you and not me. The only thing I ask is that Category:Songs with lyrics by Ray Gilbert is only on one article/redirect. Otherwise he has two entries for the same song!

Having said that, in a year or two’s time or longer, if I am purusing T redirects again I might make the same changes again, accidently, and with no malice aforethought.

Happy editing.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get a response to this question and I don't know the answer either, but it's a problem we certainly should solve.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, and thank you for the reminder! Jpcase (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, always appreciate your edits to political BLPs! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpcase

Thank you for creating Governorship of Glenn Youngkin.

An article on the governorship (separate from the article on the person) is a suitable idea for a separate article, which is the question of the moment and it also meets wp:notability. But the whole idea is to cover it in more depth and so the article should certain evolve from it's current state which is mostly material copied from the other article. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of the information currently at Governorship of Glenn Youngkin originated at the Glenn Youngkin article; once the Youngkin article started getting too long, the governorship article was created solely so that some of the information in Youngkin's own article could be trimmed down, while still maintaining that information somewhere else. My original thought was to only include info in the goverorship article if it wasn't already included in the Youngkin article, but going that route would have meant omitting the most notable aspects of Youngkin's governorship from an article that's supposed to be all about his governorship...which wouldn't have made much sense. So I decided to just treat the governorship article as a longer version of the Youngkin article; i.e. if someone wants to do a very deep dive into Youngkin's governorship, then they can read Governorship of Glenn Youngkin, otherwise they can just stick with reading Glenn Youngkin.

While there definitely are a lot of redundancies between the two articles, the "Further information" links in the main article do actually lead to new information - for example, the Economy section in the Governorship section includes an additional subsection, Labor rights and public services, not included in the main Youngkin article.

I recognize that both articles are quite long, but I don't have the time to substantially reorganize either of them right now. The first year of a Virginia governor's term is typically much, much more eventful than the second year though - especially when the legislature is divided between parties, which is currently the case - so I don't foresee either article expanding by more than a paragraph or two at the most in the coming year. The current length of each article should really be viewed more in terms of covering the first half of Youngkin's governorship, not the first 1/4. If by some small chance, the current year winds up being unexpectedly eventful for Youngkin, then yes, at that point, I would definitely see a need to shorten a lot of things. --Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Indian superhero films by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 23 § Japanese superhero films‎ by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2000s Japanese superhero films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Per C1. All content has been upmerged to Category:2000s superhero films and Category:Japanese superhero films per this discussion.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

Category:2010s Japanese superhero films has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up regarding the old email address. I deleted all the emails between us, emptied the trash, made sure you're not in my contacts, and signed out and back in to my email. Yet your (old) address still pops up when I enter "Jpcase". I'll have to research how to get the system to forget it properly. Maybe it's "AI" trying to be helpful but not being very intelligent.

FYI, two of the sources I sent you came from