User talk:Koavf/Archive055
User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Image tagging for File:Mister America (2019) film poster.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Mister America (2019) film poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The Midnight Snack
[edit]Please don't continue to revert at The Midnight Snack and Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat. Your blank-and-redirects were contested. The proper thing to do now is to discuss it and reach a consensus, either on the talk page or at AfD. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, I don't think they should be deleted--why would I post them to AfD? As you know, per WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE, we cannot have unsourced content here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to come here to post a similar comment to Joe. In cases where there's a back-and-forth over whether an article should be redirected or not, AfD is still the appropriate venue to hash out the discussion, just make it clear in your nominating statement what outcome you're advocating for. signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I already have a consensus at WT:ANIMATION in addition to the fact that WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE are non-negotiable policies at Wikipedia. Where do you see any text at WP:AFD that says that it's an appropriate venue for proposing a redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have a policy page on hand to quote at you, but I can say that this has long been the practice as part of new page patrol so as to avoid the perception that we're not giving articles a fair hearing (see WP:DRAFTIFY for an example of an analogous case where it's stated that an article should be taken to AfD following contested moves out of mainspace).
- While I agree with your initiative for most of these articles, I would hesitate to call the discussion at WT:ANIMATION a consensus. Taking these articles to AfD will settle the matter once and for all, as opposed to edit warring until 3RR sanctions come into play. signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I found the relevant guidelines: WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR:
If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Requests for Comment.
signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)- Rosguill, (Looks like we had an edit conflict). Exactly: consensus should be made before restoration. Note that one of the users undoing these redirects also appeals to WP:PRESERVE which explicitly says that WP:OR and WP:V indicate that material that does not meet these policies should be removed as well as "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, but the other guideline I linked says effectively the opposite:
the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input.
- Given that there's a contradiction here, we should default to BRD. In most cases, it would appear to be the conversion to a redirect which was the original bold edit, so following the revert to article discussion is the next step. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 [1] ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the importance of removing unsourced content, but repeatedly restoring a revert while quoting policy links at editors who clearly don't understand what's going on is not productive because they're just going to revert you, prolonging the process and ultimately increasing the amount of time that this content is in the mainspace. One of the editors you're warring with is literally 14 if their user page is to be believed.
- Also, these articles are about cartoons from almost a century ago, that have been up in mainspace for a decade. We're not exactly dealing with libelous BLPs, one more week spent with a deletion tag on them while we establish a clear consensus is not going to harm anyone. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, There already is a consensus for WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SOURCE for the entire encyclopedia project. If we get a consensus at WP:AFD or WT:ANIMATION or any other page, why would they be more likely to listen to that? Why is the onus on me to expend more overhead for these non-articles that we should never have had instead of someone just saying, "Don't do this again or you'll be blocked"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Because WP:CIVIL is also policy (and also because other editors will likely stand down once such a consensus has been reached, and because admins will be quick to intervene in the event that someone edits against a clear consensus from an AfD). Additionally, one of the cartoon articles that you've reverted recently, The Two Mouseketeers, has an Oscar win to its name, with an external link to what is probably a reliable source backing up that claim, so at least one of these articles would likely survive an AfD even if the sourcing on the article as written is woefully deficient. signed, Rosguill talk 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, WP:CIVIL? Have I in any way not treated others with consideration and respect? I think I've tried to maintain a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates here. What have I done that is uncivil? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm interpreting CIVIL broadly admittedly, but it's pretty clear that at least one of the editors fighting you over this does not understand why you are reverting the articles and does not understand how writing WP:OR, WP:V etc. in the edit summary is an explanation. Which is frustrating to deal with and arguably close to WP:CIR-territory at that point, but from their perspective it is also very frustrating because content that they care about is being deleted and they 1) don't understand why and 2) don't understand why you have the authority to do this unilaterally, leading them to fight back by edit warring.
- At any rate, I think my other argument is better: AfDs end edit wars. We have a guideline (WP:BLAR) saying that this is an acceptable use of AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I have explained this on all of their talk pages and invited all of them to comment at the discussion at WT:ANIMATION; they are choosing to be willfully ignorant and are opposed to discussion or collaboration. Yes, things can be confusing or frustrating but I have done more than just put "WP:OR" in an edit summary: I have made many, many good faith attempts to discuss with them and they have all refused to a person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK, in that case I totally retract my comment about civility. I still think that going to AfD will likely resolve the issue once and for all, but at this point it's your call. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, Thanks. Your feedback is very much appreciated and I appreciate you giving your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK, in that case I totally retract my comment about civility. I still think that going to AfD will likely resolve the issue once and for all, but at this point it's your call. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I have explained this on all of their talk pages and invited all of them to comment at the discussion at WT:ANIMATION; they are choosing to be willfully ignorant and are opposed to discussion or collaboration. Yes, things can be confusing or frustrating but I have done more than just put "WP:OR" in an edit summary: I have made many, many good faith attempts to discuss with them and they have all refused to a person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, WP:CIVIL? Have I in any way not treated others with consideration and respect? I think I've tried to maintain a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates here. What have I done that is uncivil? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Because WP:CIVIL is also policy (and also because other editors will likely stand down once such a consensus has been reached, and because admins will be quick to intervene in the event that someone edits against a clear consensus from an AfD). Additionally, one of the cartoon articles that you've reverted recently, The Two Mouseketeers, has an Oscar win to its name, with an external link to what is probably a reliable source backing up that claim, so at least one of these articles would likely survive an AfD even if the sourcing on the article as written is woefully deficient. signed, Rosguill talk 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, There already is a consensus for WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SOURCE for the entire encyclopedia project. If we get a consensus at WP:AFD or WT:ANIMATION or any other page, why would they be more likely to listen to that? Why is the onus on me to expend more overhead for these non-articles that we should never have had instead of someone just saying, "Don't do this again or you'll be blocked"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 [1] ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, but the other guideline I linked says effectively the opposite:
- Rosguill, (Looks like we had an edit conflict). Exactly: consensus should be made before restoration. Note that one of the users undoing these redirects also appeals to WP:PRESERVE which explicitly says that WP:OR and WP:V indicate that material that does not meet these policies should be removed as well as "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, The second sentence at WP:AFD reads (emphasis added), "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I would be happy to nominate these if I thought it were appropriate but the page explicitly says to not do this. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- pretty sure
pages needing redirects
in that context means a page that needs a redirect pointing to it. At any rate, see my above comment. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- pretty sure
- I found the relevant guidelines: WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR:
- Rosguill, I already have a consensus at WT:ANIMATION in addition to the fact that WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE are non-negotiable policies at Wikipedia. Where do you see any text at WP:AFD that says that it's an appropriate venue for proposing a redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to come here to post a similar comment to Joe. In cases where there's a back-and-forth over whether an article should be redirected or not, AfD is still the appropriate venue to hash out the discussion, just make it clear in your nominating statement what outcome you're advocating for. signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think a reply from me is warranted here, since I am (peripherally) involved in this: I don't see how claims that lack sources are of use to anyone who reads or edits Wikipedia. Content should be verified with reliable sources. Articles about fictional works should also have source-verified content that demonstrates notability—that is, descriptions of backgrounds and critic reviews of the works (articles about The Simpsons episodes are a good example of this); not just a plot summary, otherwise we're just left with an indiscriminate collection of information. Conversely, the Hanna–Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoons were made decades ago, long before computers even existed, so sources that might make these cartoons eligible for stand-alone articles might not be so easily accessible through internet searching—such sources may only be found in old newspapers which aren't stored digitally. Redirecting unreferenced articles for which sources can't be found easily seems to me to be reasonable (as long as their titles are plausible search terms), as the good-faith edits to the articles are preserved under the redirects instead of just being completely deleted, and the redirection can (but shouldn't necessarily) be reversed at any time. By the way, I have filed a full-protection request for The Midnight Snack as this edit war is getting out of hand. Linguist111my talk page 03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Linguist111, Thanks. I am posting this to WT:ANIMATION as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
September 2019
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Joe (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)- I'm really shocked that I have to remind you about this given your level of experience. When changes are disputed we, retain the status quo (in this case no redirect) and attempt to reach a consensus. You've been advised by multiple editors (7&6=thirteen, DBigXray, me, Rosguill) that you should stop edit warring over these redirects and take it to AfD or a talk page. Simply informing the other party that they are wrong is not a consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, So when should we include unsourced information in Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's beside the point. Unsourced articles are a problem but you cannot impose your preferred solution without consensus. If you'll agree to stop reverting and take these articles to AfD, I'm willing to unblock you. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, Sounds like a plan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Done Thank you for understanding. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, Sounds like a plan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's beside the point. Unsourced articles are a problem but you cannot impose your preferred solution without consensus. If you'll agree to stop reverting and take these articles to AfD, I'm willing to unblock you. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, So when should we include unsourced information in Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey again. I could not find the FFD nomination on the screenshot at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 6. Even WhatLinksHere doesn't currently show an FFD subpage linking the image. At first I want to complete the nomination on your behalf, but then I figured I'll leave this to you. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- George Ho, I'm sure it's a problem with overusing the script. I'll renominate. Thanks, George. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 establishments in England
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:1000 establishments in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!
[edit]Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Diversity winner
- Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Project tagging
[edit]1. Many articles are moved automatically, perhaps you’d like to investigate how the talk page is dealt with.
- Talk:Tight (INXS song) article moved to Tight (song)
- Talk:Too Much Junkie Business, article moved to Too Much Junkie Business
You will note that such talk pages are redirects only, and not tagged for anything, automatically, with nobody going over them to add any tags (and there’s been 100s of them too, recently). There is no benefit to WP or WPSongs to project tag them.
2. Investigating the tags on the two recent changes you have added to the talkpages of Walking Along The River and Wanted For Life , neither article name space is tagged as a song, but as R from other capitalisation and R avoided double redirect. Why do you consider it so important to tag errors with a project?
3. While on the same two redirects, I assume you are aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), yet you managed to managed to create both, which contain blatant contractions of that convention. Perhaps you’d like to explain your reasoning for actually creating the redirect in the first place?
4. There are literally millions of redirects, with little or no relationship to a project. I assume by your actions you think they should all be associated with a project in which case why aren’t you doing it, instead of just editing warring me?
5. You are only concerned with those you have tagged, and nobody else’s. I take from this that your objection is personal, and nothing to do with helping WP, unless…
6. … you can justify your actions, explain what benefit is there to any project tagging mispelt, wrong capitalisation, unnecessary disambiguation and other errata?
So, Justin, let’s hear your reasoning for your actions, persuade and impress me with your clear and concise reasoning that you are helping WP & projects with your editing in these cases. Something other than your oft-repeated and pointless WP:BRD. BTW, It looks nobody is interested in any of the 4 times you have tried to raise this matter, the first time, when you complained about edit warring, you got the response, 'This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation.' You should have paid attention to that. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho::
- I never said that tags were added automatically--I know that they aren't. It requires manual intervention to tag pages.
- I find it useful to tag everything to know what the contents of the encyclopedia are.
- They are plausible capitalizations that someone may use, just like (e.g.) Left For Dead
- There are only 24 hours in a day. I would ask you the same thing: why are you only edit-warring me? You act like a "war" can be one-sided and that when you do it, it's just okay but when I do it, it's a war.
- That's an incorrect take-away: I only see what's on my watchlist. I have 18,000+ things on it and work on many other projects as well--I cannot be responsible for all of your actions.
- I did above: I find it handy. On projects where I typically work or have founded, I want those to all be tagged.
- Not sure why you think that BRD or the consensus process are "pointless"--if you genuinely believe that, then maybe this isn't a good venue for you. I have followed the recommendations to reach consensus thru every step and you seem totally unwilling and uninterested in that, instead making it personality-based and refusing to engage. Not sure why Bradv thought that you undoing my work four times in 24 hours wasn't a violation: that is also not my responsibility but as to "this is dumb" I could just as easily say, "Rich, your edits are dumb" and would that persuade you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Disengenious replies, but commenting on No 6 only. "I did above: I find it handy. On projects where I typically work or have founded, I want those to all be tagged." The question is why is it useful , not whether you think it is useful? Other than for edit-warring with other edits when somebody changes your edit, what is the value? Give the world the reasons why you think you are right, you might have something the rest of us have missed.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Nothing I wrote was disingenuous. It's hard to have a conversation when you don't assume good faith. I don't know how to help you here other than to say that tagging allows you to find things on the encyclopedia when they are added to categories or reports by bots for WikiProject project logs (one thing they do is note if something is converted to/from a redirect). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- None of your replies were real answers, which is why I asked about No 6 again, but no, Poor Koafv is being picked on again because he can't answer a question straight. Now try and answer Mo 6. - we might get somewhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, They were all "real" answers. I don't know what weird criteria you have in your mind for what constitutes something being a "real" answer. I don't know why I have to ask you this repeatedly, but please don't be disrespectful to me: that is the bare minimum to ask of someone. I gave you a straightforward answer to #6: knowing which redirects belong to a project has several benefits, e.g. expanding redirects with possibilities into articles, retargeting redirects that have sections associated with them, reverting vandalism in obscure redirects that aren't liable to be watched otherwise, deleting implausible or unlikely redirects and having a way of alerting editors that may be interested due to the relevance to a project, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you think 'WP should do it this way because I like it,' is a reasonable answer you really haven't understood the principals of WP... --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, E.g.? No need to be cryptic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Re-read your comment: Where did I oblige anyone else to do something? Also, I didn't argue that things should happen because I like them: I gave several possible and practical applications, none of which appealed to my preferences or aesthetics. Just like how no one should do something because I like it, no one should be barred from doing something because you dislike it. This doesn't get us anywhere closer to any truth. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you think 'WP should do it this way because I like it,' is a reasonable answer you really haven't understood the principals of WP... --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, They were all "real" answers. I don't know what weird criteria you have in your mind for what constitutes something being a "real" answer. I don't know why I have to ask you this repeatedly, but please don't be disrespectful to me: that is the bare minimum to ask of someone. I gave you a straightforward answer to #6: knowing which redirects belong to a project has several benefits, e.g. expanding redirects with possibilities into articles, retargeting redirects that have sections associated with them, reverting vandalism in obscure redirects that aren't liable to be watched otherwise, deleting implausible or unlikely redirects and having a way of alerting editors that may be interested due to the relevance to a project, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- None of your replies were real answers, which is why I asked about No 6 again, but no, Poor Koafv is being picked on again because he can't answer a question straight. Now try and answer Mo 6. - we might get somewhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Nothing I wrote was disingenuous. It's hard to have a conversation when you don't assume good faith. I don't know how to help you here other than to say that tagging allows you to find things on the encyclopedia when they are added to categories or reports by bots for WikiProject project logs (one thing they do is note if something is converted to/from a redirect). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Disengenious replies, but commenting on No 6 only. "I did above: I find it handy. On projects where I typically work or have founded, I want those to all be tagged." The question is why is it useful , not whether you think it is useful? Other than for edit-warring with other edits when somebody changes your edit, what is the value? Give the world the reasons why you think you are right, you might have something the rest of us have missed.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The Older I Get (EP)
[edit]Hello!
A deletion discussion is taken place about whether or not The Older I Get (EP) should be presented over the Wikipedia. You may chime in on the topic over at the article entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Older_I_Get_(EP)
Have a nice day! -- Pr12402 (talk 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Lady Gaga saying her next album will be called Adele was a joke
[edit]I thought you would know that—every news media outlet has interpreted it as a joke. Also, there is no mention of Adele's name or anything at Lady Gaga's article to support the redirect you created. If you intend to have it be kept, you should insert one, otherwise it can be nominated at WP:RFD. Ss112 19:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Thanks--very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Will of Chiang Kai-shek
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Talk:Will of Chiang Kai-shek requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 establishments by country
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:1000 establishments by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Death metal albums by Cuban artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Death metal albums by Cuban artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Death metal albums by Belarusian artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Death metal albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Industrial albums by Belarusian artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Industrial albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 in England
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:1000 in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Global templates draft spec
[edit]Hi,
I noticed that when new wikis are created, you often help them create templates that are useful for page design and workflows. Thank you for doing this.
For some time I've been thinking about how could this process be simpler and more automatic, and beneficial not only for small wikis, but for all wikis.
I wrote something about it.
Short version: mw:User:Amire80/Global_templates_draft_spec/TLDR
Long version: mw:User:Amire80/Global_templates_draft_spec
Given your experience, your feedback about this will be very appreciated.
Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Amire80, This is great. I was just thinking about this as nqo.wp got started--I've had some trouble with importing at nap.ws and outreach: and was thinking about how useful global templates would be in the past week. Thanks for the invitation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! It means a lot.
- If you have the time to read the whole long document and send me any comments that you have, I'll really appreciate it.
- I don't expect it to be immediately perfect, and I don't want to "own" it—this kind of a project should become owned by the wide community as early as possible :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Amire80, I have a long day today but it's an open tab so I'll get to it sooner or later. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Amire80, I have a long day today but it's an open tab so I'll get to it sooner or later. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:English-language websites has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:English-language websites, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:Podcasts by language has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Podcasts by language, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:English-language podcasts has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:English-language podcasts, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Hispanic theologians
[edit]Category:Hispanic theologians has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Group of 9
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Group of 9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not 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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Group of 9
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Group of 9 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 company, corporation or organization that 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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk:7″ single
[edit]I thought we weren't supposed to be adding project tags to redirects until the RfC is finished. Or does that only apply to other people and not Justin? I now have a long list of your edits for when the RfC is closed. Hint: If you don't want people to point out your silliness, don't be silly. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Since there was a practice of doing that with no objection for 13 years, that was the status quo. If you think I shouldn't tag them until the RfC is finished, I think that's a totally reasonable request. I'll make one to you: please be more civil on my talk page and when communicating with me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That was my argument, but according to you, that didn't count. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, What was your argument? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Leave it, you're not that stupid. You know precisely what I mean. If I can't remove then you can't add irrelevant project tags. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please don't be rude to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Then don't play for the insult. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Until you have something constructive and civil to say, please don't post to my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hard to be constructive, but the issue is quite simple. Why do you think you have the right to berate me for the very same things you do? It's not difficult, it's not clever, and it so obvious that it shouldn't need spelling out... but you pretend you don't understand.... So here it is, to remain compliant with your own wishes, do not add project tags while there is an RfC active (which you started) as you did with Talk:7″ single --Richhoncho (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, If it's hard to be constructive, you may want to reconsider if you belong on a collaborative website. Please give me an example where I berated you for doing the same thing that I did. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Constructive is doing what you expect others to do, constructive is listening to other people, constructive is not edit warring on the principal of, in your words, 'because I like it I will do it this way.' Don't you dare accuse me of being unconstructive, how many temporary bans have you had now? Now wait until the RfC is closed, as you expect me to do and stop making yourself look sillier and sillier. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please don't talk down to me and please be civil on my talk page. As I understood it, the dispute was about removing talk page tags that have been on pages for a decade plus. I have not removed any tags since the RfC started. If you want to request that I not add talk page tags to redirects during the duration of the RfC, that's a perfectly fine request to make but there is no reason to be as rude to me as you are being. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Happy not to talk down to you. Can you raise your game, stop being hypocritical, using bully tactics and pretending you don't understand when you don't want to answer. Then we can have an adult conversation. Thanks for your concern. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, As I've asked you before several times, how am I "bullying" you? Bullying is sustained malice used by one person against another where there's a power asymmetry. None of that is true here. You, on the other hand, keep on using abusive language toward me and I've asked you to stop several times. This newest post includes baseless allegations, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on my character, and slurs. I've not done those to you, so there is no excuse for you doing that to me (even if I had, there would be a reason but not an excuse). You allege that I'm being coy somehow but I'm only being very straightforward with my questions and answers and I have in every instance answered all of the questions you asked. You, on the other hand, are positively being disingenuous and coy when you act like you're going to post like a civil and decent person and then post another rude and unacceptable diatribe on my talk page. Any further messages that you post will not be answered if you do so in a way that is rude: this is the bare minimum that anyone can ask. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have never been abusive to you. I have been abusive about what you say, because you are a bully, uncompromising, not prepared to discuss. Remember this particular debate has been going on for a year and 4/5 posts, on many articles, I have changed my stance several times to accomodate your stance, but you have moved... how far? Have you explained why? No. All I have had from you is I am right and you are wrong. Anyway the point of this post was Why are you project tagging when there is an RfC open? It's not as if you haven't made the same point on my talk page. As I say double standards and they are not mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Sure, I'll go ahead and ask for at least the fourth time: how am I "bullying"? Please do not post flagrant lies on my talk page as I have 1.) never bullied you, 2.) I have in fact changed my perspective several times on how these talk pages could be amended (e.g. including the talk page redirect template or including a hard-coded redirect at the top), 3.) I have given explanations for my changes over and over again and answered every question you have asked me. You saying that I have not explained myself is a lie. Again, I will ask you to explain yourself: how have I "bullied" anyone? Stop the lies and stop the abuse. As I have explained above, today, in this same thread: tags have been on redirects for well over a decade, so that is the status quo. Since you have requested that I stop adding them, I have stopped adding them to redirects I have edited (e.g.) Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. It is not appropriate for you to keep on spreading slurs and lies without justifying your claim that I am bullying: either back up that false assertion or stop speaking to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have never been abusive to you. I have been abusive about what you say, because you are a bully, uncompromising, not prepared to discuss. Remember this particular debate has been going on for a year and 4/5 posts, on many articles, I have changed my stance several times to accomodate your stance, but you have moved... how far? Have you explained why? No. All I have had from you is I am right and you are wrong. Anyway the point of this post was Why are you project tagging when there is an RfC open? It's not as if you haven't made the same point on my talk page. As I say double standards and they are not mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, As I've asked you before several times, how am I "bullying" you? Bullying is sustained malice used by one person against another where there's a power asymmetry. None of that is true here. You, on the other hand, keep on using abusive language toward me and I've asked you to stop several times. This newest post includes baseless allegations, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on my character, and slurs. I've not done those to you, so there is no excuse for you doing that to me (even if I had, there would be a reason but not an excuse). You allege that I'm being coy somehow but I'm only being very straightforward with my questions and answers and I have in every instance answered all of the questions you asked. You, on the other hand, are positively being disingenuous and coy when you act like you're going to post like a civil and decent person and then post another rude and unacceptable diatribe on my talk page. Any further messages that you post will not be answered if you do so in a way that is rude: this is the bare minimum that anyone can ask. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Happy not to talk down to you. Can you raise your game, stop being hypocritical, using bully tactics and pretending you don't understand when you don't want to answer. Then we can have an adult conversation. Thanks for your concern. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please don't talk down to me and please be civil on my talk page. As I understood it, the dispute was about removing talk page tags that have been on pages for a decade plus. I have not removed any tags since the RfC started. If you want to request that I not add talk page tags to redirects during the duration of the RfC, that's a perfectly fine request to make but there is no reason to be as rude to me as you are being. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Constructive is doing what you expect others to do, constructive is listening to other people, constructive is not edit warring on the principal of, in your words, 'because I like it I will do it this way.' Don't you dare accuse me of being unconstructive, how many temporary bans have you had now? Now wait until the RfC is closed, as you expect me to do and stop making yourself look sillier and sillier. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, If it's hard to be constructive, you may want to reconsider if you belong on a collaborative website. Please give me an example where I berated you for doing the same thing that I did. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hard to be constructive, but the issue is quite simple. Why do you think you have the right to berate me for the very same things you do? It's not difficult, it's not clever, and it so obvious that it shouldn't need spelling out... but you pretend you don't understand.... So here it is, to remain compliant with your own wishes, do not add project tags while there is an RfC active (which you started) as you did with Talk:7″ single --Richhoncho (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Until you have something constructive and civil to say, please don't post to my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Then don't play for the insult. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please don't be rude to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Leave it, you're not that stupid. You know precisely what I mean. If I can't remove then you can't add irrelevant project tags. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, What was your argument? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That was my argument, but according to you, that didn't count. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, according to you I need lessons in being polite and nice to you, so perhaps, in the spirit of cooperation, you could word the following question for me, 'Justin, why do you do the very things you ask other editors not to do i.e. edit while there is an active RfC? And then just for completeness, you might like to actually answer the question - saying it's been going on for 13 years does not answer the RfC question. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please set an example then and actually answer a question, as I have reposed here, the reason I came to your talkpage and the reason I keep going on. YOU answer the FIRST question first and then we might actually be able to move on. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I have to mind my language, but you can call me a liar. I call you hypocrite again. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, when I started adding Project tags to songs, there was about 357 redirects... Other than the reason that a mistitle (for whatever reason) is not a song and cannot be a song (the very opposite of the crux of your argument), is that I go through the r from song & redirects (download to Excel) and check for matches, anything not matching I amend accordingly, whether than means adding or removing the r from song or reassessing, removing or adding a project tag. It also serves several other purposes. On a clean sweep nearly every entry will have a matching pair. So far, only one person has complained in nearly 10 years. Now can you explain why adding a project tag to a mistitle is so useful to you and what further steps you take having added the project tag? OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Insult and dodge the question again? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Insult and dodge the question again? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, when I started adding Project tags to songs, there was about 357 redirects... Other than the reason that a mistitle (for whatever reason) is not a song and cannot be a song (the very opposite of the crux of your argument), is that I go through the r from song & redirects (download to Excel) and check for matches, anything not matching I amend accordingly, whether than means adding or removing the r from song or reassessing, removing or adding a project tag. It also serves several other purposes. On a clean sweep nearly every entry will have a matching pair. So far, only one person has complained in nearly 10 years. Now can you explain why adding a project tag to a mistitle is so useful to you and what further steps you take having added the project tag? OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I have to mind my language, but you can call me a liar. I call you hypocrite again. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please set an example then and actually answer a question, as I have reposed here, the reason I came to your talkpage and the reason I keep going on. YOU answer the FIRST question first and then we might actually be able to move on. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Electronic albums by Belarusian artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Electronic albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Progressive rock albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
[edit]An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Mister America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Marquee
- On Cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Marquee
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dance music albums by Egyptian artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Dance music albums by Egyptian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Progressive rock albums by Ukrainian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indie rock albums by Ukrainian artists
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Indie rock albums by Ukrainian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Bleed American feature
[edit]I don't see your point. Redundancy to the personnel section has never been a concern to this kind of thing; he is literally credited as a feature on Amazon, Apple Music, Spotify, and personnel should not hold a bearing on that. I could cut him from that section, even, if that would be better for you. dannymusiceditor oops 15:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, The personnel section should say who the personnel are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but this doesn't address what I'm saying. Adding it to the tracklist is not redundant, Davey von Bohlen is credited as a specific feature. [1][2][3][4] dannymusiceditor oops 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, How does some stores adding this information not make it redundant? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- So features aren't important to you? This should be plainly obvious. When listed in places such as these, personnel and the tracklist are both supposed to have the guest artist listed. Other examples include The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell, Volume 1 and White Pony, and that's just a couple. They are the right ones, and the majority of these guest appearance cases are listed this way. Hell, Deftones don't even list their guests on their digital stores and they still have all of their guests listed (they have at least one on every album from 1997-2006 and then one on their 2016 record). I could find you examples as numerous as the stars in our sky, across many different genres. Do not accuse me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, either; this is the most common presentation. dannymusiceditor oops 05:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, "Features" are not important to me, no. The goal of a track listing is to list the tracks. Please explain why track listings are "supposed" to have the guest listed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, that's the way it is and always has been. It's that simple. If you're this heavily opposed to it I'll ask the albums Wikiproject about it. It is conventional practice to list prominent guest appearances. dannymusiceditor oops 05:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, How it's always been? Is that how it is on the back of the album (it's not)? Is that how it was listed for 15 years prior to you changing it (it's not)? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, to say it has been missing for 15 years would be incorrect. It was listed when the article was a stub around 2013, until the tracklist got re-worked by a certain Wikipedian pop-punk/emo superfan by the name of Yeepsi in May 2015. Here's the diff of before they touched it. I pushed it the rest of the way to GA in 2016 and am inclined to believe we neglected to notice it was missing when it was reworked. You had no problem with it in January 2013 when it was added, but you have one now? This is silly. dannymusiceditor oops 06:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, That diff doesn't show what you intend to show but you had no problem with it when it was listed as a Good Article but you have one now? This is silly. The first time I edited this 13 years ago, it didn't include this superfluous information in the track listing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleed_American&oldid=48615221 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, I would've wanted it there if I had noticed it then. To think a guest appearance on an album inside the track listing is superfluous is ignorant. I'll bring this up to a larger discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 06:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, I think that retroactively changing a track listing (which is supposed to list the tracks) because a store that didn't even exist when the album was released decided at some point to add one individual's name to one track is ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, I would've wanted it there if I had noticed it then. To think a guest appearance on an album inside the track listing is superfluous is ignorant. I'll bring this up to a larger discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 06:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, That diff doesn't show what you intend to show but you had no problem with it when it was listed as a Good Article but you have one now? This is silly. The first time I edited this 13 years ago, it didn't include this superfluous information in the track listing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleed_American&oldid=48615221 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, to say it has been missing for 15 years would be incorrect. It was listed when the article was a stub around 2013, until the tracklist got re-worked by a certain Wikipedian pop-punk/emo superfan by the name of Yeepsi in May 2015. Here's the diff of before they touched it. I pushed it the rest of the way to GA in 2016 and am inclined to believe we neglected to notice it was missing when it was reworked. You had no problem with it in January 2013 when it was added, but you have one now? This is silly. dannymusiceditor oops 06:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, How it's always been? Is that how it is on the back of the album (it's not)? Is that how it was listed for 15 years prior to you changing it (it's not)? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, that's the way it is and always has been. It's that simple. If you're this heavily opposed to it I'll ask the albums Wikiproject about it. It is conventional practice to list prominent guest appearances. dannymusiceditor oops 05:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, "Features" are not important to me, no. The goal of a track listing is to list the tracks. Please explain why track listings are "supposed" to have the guest listed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- So features aren't important to you? This should be plainly obvious. When listed in places such as these, personnel and the tracklist are both supposed to have the guest artist listed. Other examples include The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell, Volume 1 and White Pony, and that's just a couple. They are the right ones, and the majority of these guest appearance cases are listed this way. Hell, Deftones don't even list their guests on their digital stores and they still have all of their guests listed (they have at least one on every album from 1997-2006 and then one on their 2016 record). I could find you examples as numerous as the stars in our sky, across many different genres. Do not accuse me of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, either; this is the most common presentation. dannymusiceditor oops 05:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, How does some stores adding this information not make it redundant? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but this doesn't address what I'm saying. Adding it to the tracklist is not redundant, Davey von Bohlen is credited as a specific feature. [1][2][3][4] dannymusiceditor oops 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
You have every right to hold that opinion, but I will never agree with it. I will still be starting a larger discussion later today. For now, good night from the States. dannymusiceditor oops 06:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Update: so I'm not the only crazy American editing at these hours. dannymusiceditor oops 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- DannyMusicEditor, No, you are not. Gnite and sweet dreams. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Remington Records EPs
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Remington Records EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"Adele (album)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adele (album). Since you had some involvement with the Adele (album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NØ 14:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Following me around
[edit]Please stop following me around, You've never edited Karmin and therefore you've only found the template by looking through my contribs,
If you don't want me following you around (as you have stated at the reflist talkpage[5]) then stop following me,
We're going to bump into each other from time to time that's life however in this instance you've clearly followed me ....,
You stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Davey2010, It doesn't bother me if you look at my edits. What bothers me is your rudeness and lies. If you want to follow me around, that's your choice to make. If you want to say vicious and mean things to me, that is inappropriate. Your choice to make. Not sure what your objection is: do you have a problem with the actual content of any edit I made? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have a problem with you following me around - As I said you've never edited Karmin or their related articles so therefore you would have no reason to edit that template,
- I don't really wanna have to file an ANI report, I'd rather we both move on to improving the project which is why we're here so like I said you stop following me and I'll stop following you, Lets put our readers first, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Davey2010, An ANI report? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Davey2010, Can you explain what you mean? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- No because it's self-explanatory, Now stop pinging me. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, not sure how I can help you but have a nice day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- No because it's self-explanatory, Now stop pinging me. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Alternative rock albums by Ukrainian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
"Template:WPREPTILES" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WPREPTILES. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WPREPTILES redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sun Creator(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"Template:WPAMPHIBIAN" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WPAMPHIBIAN. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WPAMPHIBIAN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sun Creator(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
[edit]Hello Koavf,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikilivres
[edit]Template:Wikilivres has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I really am sorry about this, my very good friend. But we have to face the fact that Wikilivres is gone forever. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Simon Peter Hughes, All things must pass, S. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Schism Records EPs
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Schism Records EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
[edit]Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Finding Jack. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft of your article in draftspace or in your userspace first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 12:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping out the newcomers, Alex...
- The issue here has nothing to do with drafting, it's about avoiding CRYSTAL for as-yet unstarted film projects. But this article is, in addition, about rather more than that. Notability is already established, whether they complete the film or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, nothing has established notability for this film. One sentence is not notable. All the notable content is already listed at James Dean, per WP:NFF:
information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material
. -- /Alex/21 21:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)- Read the article. Count the refs. Three RS on the controversy specifically (and plenty more out there).
- Also, given your specific comment, are you aware that this isn't a film about Dean? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Three RS on the controversy. Not on the film. Now read WP:NFF and tell me which part applies to the film to allow the existence of the article in the mainspace. -- /Alex/21 12:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, nothing has established notability for this film. One sentence is not notable. All the notable content is already listed at James Dean, per WP:NFF:
"Rambo V: The Savage Hunt" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rambo V: The Savage Hunt. Since you had some involvement with the Rambo V: The Savage Hunt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hiberno English editnotice
[edit]Template:Hiberno English editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films directed by Anton Ernst
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Films directed by Anton Ernst requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised to have to say this but surely you know that you're past at the three-revert rule on Celeste (video game), yes? You were already warned for this in September by @Joe Roe: If you disagree with an edit or are otherwise in a content dispute, per BRD, the common practice is to take the discussion to the talk page. Nothing good comes from reverting back and forth. It's baldly disruptive and given your visibility in the community, it's a let down to see you make such edits. czar 01:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Czar, Can you please provide diffs for the four or more reverts I have made to that page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was three reverts and surely you can find them in the last 24 hours' history. I've modified my message. The point is not to edit war. czar 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Czar, The third revert also does not re-add the material that the user claimed shouldn't be there--it simply changes formatting and conforms several of the dates to the standard they are supposed to be in the first place. Since there is no ongoing conflict, there is no edit war. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I saw that, but it's still using reverts to push content changes as a substitute for discussion. I don't know whether that one line/material was the only part to which Angeldeb objected but I do know that reverting back and forth only escalates what is easily rectified on a talk page. It became an "edit war" by definition on your second revert. I don't think this warrants more than a simple acknowledgment unless you plan to make the same action again under similar circumstances. czar 01:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Czar, The third revert also does not re-add the material that the user claimed shouldn't be there--it simply changes formatting and conforms several of the dates to the standard they are supposed to be in the first place. Since there is no ongoing conflict, there is no edit war. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was three reverts and surely you can find them in the last 24 hours' history. I've modified my message. The point is not to edit war. czar 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:RSPSOURCES, don't cite Forbes contributors
[edit]The source you provided has been tagged as unreliable. Please don't revert until/unless you find a better source. I am sure you can tolerate a tag on an article. It's not pettiness, it's now you being unaware contributors to Forbes are not considered reliable sources by multiple consensuses; only staff writers for Forbes are. If you reply here, I don't require a ping. Thanks. Ss112 08:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, I didn't require this note. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I decided to be more formal than leaving a reply in an edit summary. Also, I'm not playing "petty games" with you. If you think I want to play a game with you, when you reverted me first, you're sorely mistaken. Also, I asked not to be pinged. Maybe it's habit for you, but users do follow talk pages they comment on so it's unnecessary. Thank you. Ss112 08:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't ask to not be pinged. Again, some weird little head game from you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what your fixation with the idea of editors playing "games" with you is. First it was a "petty game", now it's a "head game". Let it go. I said "I don't require a ping", which means I don't want one. If that doesn't mean the same thing to you, then I'll be sure to specify more clearly in future. Ss112 18:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, great. Please don't post here unless you are polite and have something useful to say. Have a good day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was being as polite as possible. Thank you. Ss112 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, well pardon me if I misread. Have a nice one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was being as polite as possible. Thank you. Ss112 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, great. Please don't post here unless you are polite and have something useful to say. Have a good day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what your fixation with the idea of editors playing "games" with you is. First it was a "petty game", now it's a "head game". Let it go. I said "I don't require a ping", which means I don't want one. If that doesn't mean the same thing to you, then I'll be sure to specify more clearly in future. Ss112 18:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't ask to not be pinged. Again, some weird little head game from you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I decided to be more formal than leaving a reply in an edit summary. Also, I'm not playing "petty games" with you. If you think I want to play a game with you, when you reverted me first, you're sorely mistaken. Also, I asked not to be pinged. Maybe it's habit for you, but users do follow talk pages they comment on so it's unnecessary. Thank you. Ss112 08:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
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 |
Where are we now on tagging?
[edit]Are you going to pursue this matter until you get a response that suits you or are you going to accept you have no support for your opinion? This does need to be resolved - either between us, or with a consent from other sources. As they say, the ball is in your court for the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- And we're off again. Which Question? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, If you refuse to read up above where I asked you repeatedly: "As I've asked you before several times, how am I "bullying" you? Bullying is sustained malice used by one person against another where there's a power asymmetry. None of that is true here. You, on the other hand, keep on using abusive language toward me and I've asked you to stop several times. This newest post includes baseless allegations, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on my character, and slurs. I've not done those to you, so there is no excuse for you doing that to me (even if I had, there would be a reason but not an excuse)." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly you are confused, it is you that have been here there and everywhere complaining about me bullying you. Not one editor has supported your opinion. Secondly, I came here with a reasonable and polite question, thirdly, you are continuing to make every effort to obfuscate the issue. Now if you want a question answered put it down here, on this these thread, clearly and concisely and I will do my best to answer it, and any supplemental questions you might have.
- Alternatively I will assume that you wish to have an argument I am not prepared to engage in.
- Your choice. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "it is you that have been here there and everywhere complaining about me bullying you" Please provide me a diff where I have done this. (e.g.) I have asked you several times to be polite to me and you post things like this: "Are you going to pursue this matter until you get a response that suits you or are you going to accept you have no support for your opinion?" which there is no way on Earth you think is a polite way to talk to someone. Additionally, I have told you to stop posting here unless you first answer your claim that I have been a bully. I'm happy to discuss with you if you will be polite, answer the question I have asked you several times (which is just justifying a claim you made about me being a bully), and now if you will provide any diff that I have been "here there and everywhere complaining about [Rich] bullying [Justin]" i.e. if you can show me any diff of any edit I have made off of this talk page where I complain about you bullying me. If you can do those three things, I'm happy to talk with you. If you refuse to do those three things, then please do not post here. I am not interested in obfuscating anything: I am in fact, seeking some clarity about your claims which you can easily do any time you want or either retract them. I would prefer to not make this personality-based but over and over again, you make it a point to make this about me instead of about some kind of good faith disagreement between editors who have different perspectives. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just to remind you of the ANI you opened, Richhoncho reported by Koafv (Result: No violation. followed by two separate complaints you made to an administrator, complaint, and another complaint. If you are not capable of remembering what's has happened before why should I? I shall draw a line under this thread and ask politely in a couple of days time. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Please show me any language where I alleged you were bullying me. (Also, you posted the same thing twice). Also, please show me where I bullied you or don't post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just to remind you of the ANI you opened, Richhoncho reported by Koafv (Result: No violation. followed by two separate complaints you made to an administrator, complaint, and another complaint. If you are not capable of remembering what's has happened before why should I? I shall draw a line under this thread and ask politely in a couple of days time. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "it is you that have been here there and everywhere complaining about me bullying you" Please provide me a diff where I have done this. (e.g.) I have asked you several times to be polite to me and you post things like this: "Are you going to pursue this matter until you get a response that suits you or are you going to accept you have no support for your opinion?" which there is no way on Earth you think is a polite way to talk to someone. Additionally, I have told you to stop posting here unless you first answer your claim that I have been a bully. I'm happy to discuss with you if you will be polite, answer the question I have asked you several times (which is just justifying a claim you made about me being a bully), and now if you will provide any diff that I have been "here there and everywhere complaining about [Rich] bullying [Justin]" i.e. if you can show me any diff of any edit I have made off of this talk page where I complain about you bullying me. If you can do those three things, I'm happy to talk with you. If you refuse to do those three things, then please do not post here. I am not interested in obfuscating anything: I am in fact, seeking some clarity about your claims which you can easily do any time you want or either retract them. I would prefer to not make this personality-based but over and over again, you make it a point to make this about me instead of about some kind of good faith disagreement between editors who have different perspectives. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, If you refuse to read up above where I asked you repeatedly: "As I've asked you before several times, how am I "bullying" you? Bullying is sustained malice used by one person against another where there's a power asymmetry. None of that is true here. You, on the other hand, keep on using abusive language toward me and I've asked you to stop several times. This newest post includes baseless allegations, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on my character, and slurs. I've not done those to you, so there is no excuse for you doing that to me (even if I had, there would be a reason but not an excuse)." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- And we're off again. Which Question? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of File talk:Thai Grand Palace Bangkok.jpg
[edit] File talk:Thai Grand Palace Bangkok.jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Thai Grand Palace Bangkok.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File talk:Thai Grand Palace Bangkok.jpg 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. Paul_012 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
[edit]Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Historians from Wyoming
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Historians from Wyoming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Mark Burnett Nominations and Awards Chart
[edit]I was surprised to see that you deleted the entire Nominations and Wins chart for Mark Burnett. I believe these types of charts and tables add great value to Wikipedia articles, which explains why they appear frequently throughout the project, despite the amount of work it takes to create them, as you can see with J.J. Abrams and Mayim Bialik, and on many other pages. In the interest of getting the chart reinstated, I would like to add it back with references that I've found. My question to you is if it would make sense to add a reference for every line (which seems excessive)? Or would it be enough to include a reference such as this one just one time to cover the Emmy nominations and wins? And then to add a few other references to cover other types of nominations and wins? I would hope, since we all know that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, that if I get the chart back up with some decent references, others will come along and add more references. I appreciate your thoughts on this and your time and advice. Starburstdelight (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Starburstdelight, I am 100% in favor of references that cover multiple entries. To make it less visually awkward, you may have some running text at the beginning like, "Burnett has been nominated for several awards during his career, including 18 Emmys [reference]..." I very much appreciate your efforts to include sourced information and I also agree that those tables are very useful; it's unfortunate that they are so often unsourced. Thanks and let me know what else I can do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf Ok thanks so much for this feedback and advice. I'm going to reinstate the chart with references in sentence format right before it...and I hope others will add more references as they find them. Thanks! Starburstdelight (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Help
[edit]Hi, could you please help me with the article about the band Kissing the Pink? I'm really passionate about their music at the moment, and I'm not really good at adding original content or working on band articles so could you please help me out if you can? Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Vitale 5, I don't think I have a lot to add here or the attention to give to a topic that I don't know much about at this time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
KNAPPTASTIC
[edit]| Justin Anthony Knapp | |
| Just for you my KOAVFILICIOUS friend NoHate321 (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
December 2019
[edit] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Danielle Fishel; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Amaury • 23:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Producer categories
[edit]Hi. I thought per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Categorization that there should only be producer categories for albums only when they have "worked on a significant portion of the album". Why should Ology (album) be placed in Category:Albums produced by Adrian Younge and Category:Albums produced by Häzel, when it appears each only contributed to the production of one song apiece on the album. Cheers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I guess so. Seems very vague tho and definitely not a consensus that I would support. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
[edit]
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
[edit]| Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
|
Hello Koavf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
- @*Treker: Same to you and more of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
[edit]| two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
[edit]Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはKoavfたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Miraclepine: I hope this is your best decade yet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is, but eight days later we'll get an even better decade! ミラP 04:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Belated holiday greetings
[edit]- @Pine: It's never too late for Christmas cheer. Here's hoping 2020 is a great one for you and yours. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
2020 Happy New Year!
[edit]- @Simon Peter Hughes: And may this auld acquaintance not be forgot. Have a happy new decade, Simon! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Invite to continue the conversation about External links in the body of an article
[edit]I have responded on my talk page and would welcome your response. Meanwhile a bountiful New Year/decade to you after the last. Regards DadaNeem (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 2
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited This Sweet Old World, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Sutton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1970 EPs
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:1970 EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Track Records EPs
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Track Records EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (help!) 12:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To Catch the Rain
[edit]Hi Koavf,
Great to meet the prolific Koavf! Thanks for adding my book, To Catch the Rain. I guess it was only a matter of time before it started being distributed via other mediums (like wikipedia). That said, I am really hoping that people sign up for the book at http://www.tocatchtherain.org since that is the main way I track its success, impact, and build support for upcoming similar works. These books take me years to write, which I am telling you in case you have ideas on how better to support copyleft and tracking success/impact/etc.
Either way. Thanks and nice to meet you! --LRG (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- LRG, Hey, thank you for writing the book and for writing to me. I hope that the permissive license allows many more eyes to see it and visit your site as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Justin! Thanks for the response and your well wishes. I hope the same, and ultimately the more people knowing how to catch their own water, the better! And now on to my next book (over a year in with a co-author and finally getting close to done). Have a great day and happy New Year! --Lonny (LRG) (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- LRG, Care to give me an idea of what it is about? I'm assuming that there is more appropriate technology/permaculture stuff...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, It is about small scale solar. I have an amazing co-author and we are excited to build on the success of To Catch the Rain. Thanks! --Lonny (LRG) (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- LRG, Care to give me an idea of what it is about? I'm assuming that there is more appropriate technology/permaculture stuff...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Justin! Thanks for the response and your well wishes. I hope the same, and ultimately the more people knowing how to catch their own water, the better! And now on to my next book (over a year in with a co-author and finally getting close to done). Have a great day and happy New Year! --Lonny (LRG) (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Country folk albums
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Country folk albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:10,000 Maniacs compilation albums
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:10,000 Maniacs compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
About Disney's Marsupilami on home media
[edit]Why did you remove the information on the home video information on Marsupilami? Just wondering. BuddyBoy600, (talk) 21:35:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- BuddyBoy600, Sorry if it wasn't clear from my second edit summary, which mentioned WP:V but all information on Wikipedia must be either 1.) common knowledge ("Paris is in France", "George Washington was the first American president", "Ducks are animals") or 2.) sourced. This information was neither. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I see. BuddyBoy600, (talk) 21:59:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"Pir (Universal Sufi Prayer)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pir (Universal Sufi Prayer). Since you had some involvement with the Pir (Universal Sufi Prayer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
"Khatum (Universal Sufism)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Khatum (Universal Sufism). Since you had some involvement with the Khatum (Universal Sufism) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
"Blessing(Universal Sufism)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blessing(Universal Sufism). Since you had some involvement with the Blessing(Universal Sufism) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pink Lady (band) live albums
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Pink Lady (band) live albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Babylon 5 (season 1) episodes
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Babylon 5 (season 1) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 03:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Deltext
[edit]Hi Koavf. We already have Template:Strikethrough. Would you be willing to agree to delete Template:Deltext after replacing the instance of its use with the former? --Bsherr (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, No, I would not: the
stag in HTML is purely stylistic and thedeltag is semantic. They don't mean the same thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, got it. So this is like Template:dc2, but black instead of gray, right? I just want to make sure I categorize it right. —Bsherr (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Or default text color, I should say. —Bsherr (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr, It likely is but to be clear, how browser vendors style deleted text can vary. As far as I'm aware, for compliant browsers, this is usually just striking but there could be other styling applied by default. I'm happy to help you if I've done a bad job categorizing or if the purpose of the template isn't making sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Why the hell did you revert my edits on Eminem's Kamikaze AND Revival?
[edit]You said in the edit comment "Don't do this--it's explicitly stated in the template instructions". What are the fuck are you referring to? Nbro (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze_(Eminem_album)
- Nbro First off, don't use that kind of language on my talk page. Please see {{Album ratings}}: "The information in the score field should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I will do that (not about the language but about the format), but what's the point of reverting my edit? You could simply have edited it. Nbro (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I don't think it's an improvement.―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? What isn't an improvement? Nbro (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Your edits. I'm confused as to what is confusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- What edits are you talking about? My edits are an improvement in that retarded reviews better not add them to the list. Nbro (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Again, please don't use that kind of language. How is the review "retarded"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, are you discriminiting words? Second, a review by a website or magazine that is completely dedicated to hip-hop should be preferred over any other type of review, when it comes to a hip-hop album, which is the case. Third, a person that gives a rating of 0 to any album is immediately retarded. Note that I've included the reviews by RapReviews, HipHopDX and XXL, which are dedicated to hip-hop music. Nbro (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Yes, I am. A dedicated hip hop publication should be included and HipHopDX is. It's useful to have a broad variety of sources in the template to give a wide scope of the critical consensus. Additionally, there were no "0" reviews in the template, so now I really have no idea what you're rambling about. Is "RapReviews" a reliable source? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're, but I am not. Yes, I didn't include only reviews by hip-hop magazines or websites, so don't worry. In fact, most reviews are not by hip-hop mags or sites, otherwise, the ratings would, in general, be higher. Note that, before my first edit of yesterday/today, there was not the review by HipHopDX (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revival_(Eminem_album)&diff=937307123&oldid=937306469). I added the review by HipHopDX. In fact, there was no review by a mag/site dedicated to hip-hop, which makes the reviews highly biased towards people that don't probably even listen to hip-hop. Nbro (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Now you are linking to a different article than the one we were discussing and you didn't answer my question about this your unreliable source. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am linking you to the version of the article before my first edit. RapReviews have been used in other articles (and it wasn't me who added it). See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_(Slaughterhouse_album). Nbro (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anyway, don't worry, I will find a better review than pitchfork that is "realiable". Then you will have to find another excuse in your head. lol. Nbro (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Yes, and it shouldn't be. Also, see above where we were discussing Kamikaze (Eminem album) and now you are linking Revival (Eminem album). You're making less sense as you post. There is no consensus about removing the existing review or specifically using more hip hop-related reviews in the albums rating box. lol ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- double lol Nbro (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Yes, and it shouldn't be. Also, see above where we were discussing Kamikaze (Eminem album) and now you are linking Revival (Eminem album). You're making less sense as you post. There is no consensus about removing the existing review or specifically using more hip hop-related reviews in the albums rating box. lol ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anyway, don't worry, I will find a better review than pitchfork that is "realiable". Then you will have to find another excuse in your head. lol. Nbro (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am linking you to the version of the article before my first edit. RapReviews have been used in other articles (and it wasn't me who added it). See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_(Slaughterhouse_album). Nbro (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Now you are linking to a different article than the one we were discussing and you didn't answer my question about this your unreliable source. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're, but I am not. Yes, I didn't include only reviews by hip-hop magazines or websites, so don't worry. In fact, most reviews are not by hip-hop mags or sites, otherwise, the ratings would, in general, be higher. Note that, before my first edit of yesterday/today, there was not the review by HipHopDX (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revival_(Eminem_album)&diff=937307123&oldid=937306469). I added the review by HipHopDX. In fact, there was no review by a mag/site dedicated to hip-hop, which makes the reviews highly biased towards people that don't probably even listen to hip-hop. Nbro (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Yes, I am. A dedicated hip hop publication should be included and HipHopDX is. It's useful to have a broad variety of sources in the template to give a wide scope of the critical consensus. Additionally, there were no "0" reviews in the template, so now I really have no idea what you're rambling about. Is "RapReviews" a reliable source? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, are you discriminiting words? Second, a review by a website or magazine that is completely dedicated to hip-hop should be preferred over any other type of review, when it comes to a hip-hop album, which is the case. Third, a person that gives a rating of 0 to any album is immediately retarded. Note that I've included the reviews by RapReviews, HipHopDX and XXL, which are dedicated to hip-hop music. Nbro (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Again, please don't use that kind of language. How is the review "retarded"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- What edits are you talking about? My edits are an improvement in that retarded reviews better not add them to the list. Nbro (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Your edits. I'm confused as to what is confusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? What isn't an improvement? Nbro (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I don't think it's an improvement.―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I will do that (not about the language but about the format), but what's the point of reverting my edit? You could simply have edited it. Nbro (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Nbro, Please stop posting here unless you have something new and meaningful to say. Also, don't use this kind of crass language on my talk page again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- According to the dictionary, the adjective "crass" means "showing no intelligence or sensitivity", so "crass language" means a language showing no intelligence or sensitivity, but "lol" is "used to draw attention to a joke or amusing statement, or to express amusement." and is part of the English dictionary, so I don't know what "crass language" you're referring to. By the way, the ability of compressing, which is the case of lol, is one of the traits of intelligence. So, yes, let's stop this discussion, unless you revert my edits without a valid reason, where valid I mean that goes against the actual rules. Nbro (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Don't casually swear on my talk page and don't call things "retarded" as an insult. I'd be very interested in seeing a citation supporting the use of "lol" as a sign of a trait of intelligence. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's stop this discussion. Have a look at compression in the context of intelligence (e.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-22887-2_21). Note that lol is an abbreviation, so it is a compressed form of some other expression (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL). Nbro (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I know what "lol" is. I also know what crass means. This citation in no way shows how using "lol" is a sign of intelligence. Don't post here further on this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf report this editor at WP:ANI or to EdJohnston (the administrator who blocked this editor not too long ago), it's clearly this editor is being disruptive and unreasonable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you're wandering about RapReviews, the website is listed at WP:ALBUMSOURCE as an reliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, I did see this later and rolled back myself at Revival (Eminem album). Thanks for the note. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Deal with it. I will add RapReviews to the list of reviews and you cannot do anything about. You cannot hide the truth. Nbro (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I told you to stop posting here about this and I've directed you to the talk page to discuss a change based on a review being "retarded". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Deal with it. Wikipedia can block me indefinitely. I believe I am doing the right thing, so I will keep on trying to show the truth. I will create other accounts if necessary. Nbro (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I told you to stop posting here about this and I've directed you to the talk page to discuss a change based on a review being "retarded". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Deal with it. I will add RapReviews to the list of reviews and you cannot do anything about. You cannot hide the truth. Nbro (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, I did see this later and rolled back myself at Revival (Eminem album). Thanks for the note. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you're wandering about RapReviews, the website is listed at WP:ALBUMSOURCE as an reliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf report this editor at WP:ANI or to EdJohnston (the administrator who blocked this editor not too long ago), it's clearly this editor is being disruptive and unreasonable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, I know what "lol" is. I also know what crass means. This citation in no way shows how using "lol" is a sign of intelligence. Don't post here further on this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's stop this discussion. Have a look at compression in the context of intelligence (e.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-22887-2_21). Note that lol is an abbreviation, so it is a compressed form of some other expression (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL). Nbro (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nbro, Don't casually swear on my talk page and don't call things "retarded" as an insult. I'd be very interested in seeing a citation supporting the use of "lol" as a sign of a trait of intelligence. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Seriously what the fuck is your problem? You report editors to an admin so you can win in disagreements? Why don’t you try to work with editors who know what they are doing? AeoNew (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- AeoNew, Don't use sockpuppets and don't talk to me that way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello from your old stomping grounds
[edit]Hey, just wanted to stop by and thank you for all your contributions over the years. I've been working at University Library for the past 4.5 years...maybe one day you'll get a plaque or something... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, The University Library is responsible for many of my edits and also a few midday naps. How are the books doing these days? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- The books are good, but many of the bound journals were mulched to make way for renovation. Such is life. Caro7200 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Wow, really? That's wild. Do we have digital copies? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Digital or in Bloomington... Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Well, that's something. Tell me something happier--I haven't been to IUPUI in awhile. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's a new dean, Kristi Palmer. New VR lab, more 3-D printers. Renovations. A transition to a books-on-demand program. It's still cool. Caro7200 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, That is actually incredible. I may need to pop in to see all that. Thanks again for updating me, Caro. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's a new dean, Kristi Palmer. New VR lab, more 3-D printers. Renovations. A transition to a books-on-demand program. It's still cool. Caro7200 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Well, that's something. Tell me something happier--I haven't been to IUPUI in awhile. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Digital or in Bloomington... Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Wow, really? That's wild. Do we have digital copies? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The books are good, but many of the bound journals were mulched to make way for renovation. Such is life. Caro7200 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Category
[edit]Hi Justin, I think one of the categories that you created for the producers of Eminem's latest album needs to be renamed... you created Category:Albums produced by D. A Doman but it looks like it should be Category:Albums produced by D. A. Doman with a period/full stop after the "A", as D. A. Doman is already an article with that punctuation. Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, Nice eye. Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Getdat
[edit]If you really think Getdat is a sock of Nbro, then open a ticket for it. Continuing to request deletion of their user/talk pages is pretty much harassment otherwise. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fabrictramp, He is a sock: there is no need for CU here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stop harassing me! What the fuck did I ever do to you? Getdat (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Getdat, See above. Please abide by the rules, Nbro. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to dig deep enough to figure it out since it's already at ANI. But until it's resolved there, stop reverting edits on Getdat's user/talk page. You're already deep into 3RR territory.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fabrictramp, This is walk like a duck, talk like a duck sockpuppetry. I can and should revert his edits and post to his otherwise blank userpage that he's a suspected sock. Do you recommend letting his vandalism stand instead? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I still don't understand the need for deleting a blanked page... El_C 02:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- El C, On projects where I'm an admin, I always mass-delete vandals' new pages. Doesn't matter what they are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I still don't understand the need for deleting a blanked page... El_C 02:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fabrictramp, This is walk like a duck, talk like a duck sockpuppetry. I can and should revert his edits and post to his otherwise blank userpage that he's a suspected sock. Do you recommend letting his vandalism stand instead? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stop harassing me! What the fuck did I ever do to you? Getdat (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 03:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Terumasa Hino albums
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Terumasa Hino albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The Award of Peace and Nobility!
[edit]| Award of Peace and Nobility | |
| Because of your hard work, good attitude, and nobility, I: Tsunami307, has decided to award you this award! Tsunami (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC) |
- @Tsunami307: You honor me. I know that I work hard here and I try to have a good attitude but I have no idea if I'm noble or not: this is supremely kind. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I wonder how many awards/messages you get nowadays... Tsunami (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tsunami307: More than I deserve. It's always appreciated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I wonder how many awards/messages you get nowadays... Tsunami (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kinetic Records compilation albums
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Kinetic Records compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you help me out with this edit? MOS:FONTSIZE says we shouldn't use text under 85%, and you changed the 95% scaling to 100%. I also don't understand the purpose of adding the floating "Team roster" text above where it says "[NFL team name] roster". Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, The caption is for accessibility. The font size can change. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- How specifically does the caption improve accessibility? If you go to New England Patriots#Roster, there's a section header called "Roster" followed by your caption that reads "Team roster" followed by "New England Patriots roster" within the actual template. This seems very redundant. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- And regarding this edit, you've made the template header text smaller and no longer bolded, which seems to be against accessibility guidelines. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, the same "edit" is discussed here. Kante4 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline you linked to is only for tables, and even if that were applicable, there is already a proper heading for this template. It appears that many of your widespread changes to similar templates have been reverted by different users, and I suggest you self-revert these changes until a proper discussion has taken place unless you can provide concrete guidelines that these changes are mandatory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, This template is a table and it didn't have a caption before I added one: what are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- These are navigation templates, not tables, and I believe there is a distinction based on the MOS link you provided (the link, by the way, has a notice at the top of the page indicating it has not been vetted by the Wikipedia community yet). There doesn't need to be a caption if there is already a heading that properly describes the contents of the template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, They are not navboxes (no idea where you got that information) and they are tables. I really don't know how to help you if you're just explicitly denying reality: maybe check the page's source, where you will see a
tabletag. Wikipedia is a website and websites should all be accessible. I don't know why you are arguing against this but I would recommend you take a look at foundationSite:accessibility-statement/, m:Accessibility, and mw:Accessibility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)- You have still yet to explain why it is necessary to have two captions/headings that say nearly the same thing next to each other. "Team roster" is right above "New England Patriots roster". There is already a caption/header for all of these templates and they are not being placed in articles without context. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, Headers provide semantic value for the structure of a document and captions provide semantic value for the meaning of a table. If you feel like they are redundant, then I would recommend adding running text to the section below the header that makes that section. Otherwise, it's okay for there to be a level three heading that says x followed by a table with a caption that says x. These semantic elements aren't made for your style preference, they are used for generating OPML outlines, helping search engines index, giving prompts to screen reading software, etc. Again, there is not a caption for these templates: you are stating something that is untrue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I made some adjustments to Template:NFL roster, does this address your accessibility concerns? If so, I am satisfied as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, It certainly does. Thanks for working with me on this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seem likes this was resolved with a minor code change that had no impact on the rendered display. I am correct there? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jweiss11, That's likely true: however a browser vendor chooses to display the caption (if at all) can vary. But yes, the take-away here is that this is very low-overhead to implement and the fact that I have to fight this battle over and over again is exhausting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, can you clarify which content here is conditional on the browser? Are you talking about "{{{TeamName|Unknown}}} roster"? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jweiss11, I'm responding to what you wrote before: "had no impact on the rendered display". What I took this to mean was previously, there was a table that had a standard row that spanned several columns at the top of the table and it displayed in a certain way. Now, that row has been changed to a caption instead and it displays in the same way that the previous version of the template did. What I mean when I wrote that browsers may display these differently is just that: a browser vendor could choose to make a caption appear differently or not at all. E.g. maybe the default behavior of a caption is to only appear as a tooltip or not display at all. I don't know of any browsers that do this but they could. My guess is that for most browsers, the display for how the template used to look versus how it looks now is entirely identical. (All the more reason why I shouldn't have to spend days and days defending basic accessibility across a dozen pages.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, if the code change for accessibility makes no significant changes to display, then it's a non-issue. It is, however, an issue when you insert nonsensical and redundant headings, as you did at Template:CBB yearly record start. Instead of complaining about your exhaustion, perhaps acknowledge that your poor approach here has caused problems, and change it? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jweiss11, And yet, other users complain about the template even when they render identically. And on those that don't, they complain about how they who have vision are bothered by something they consider redundant and are so put out that we make a mild inconvenience for them to accommodate those of us who can't see. (Additionally, headings and captions are not redundant, as they serve different purposes.) If you have a better approach here, I'm open. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, if the code change for accessibility makes no significant changes to display, then it's a non-issue. It is, however, an issue when you insert nonsensical and redundant headings, as you did at Template:CBB yearly record start. Instead of complaining about your exhaustion, perhaps acknowledge that your poor approach here has caused problems, and change it? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jweiss11, I'm responding to what you wrote before: "had no impact on the rendered display". What I took this to mean was previously, there was a table that had a standard row that spanned several columns at the top of the table and it displayed in a certain way. Now, that row has been changed to a caption instead and it displays in the same way that the previous version of the template did. What I mean when I wrote that browsers may display these differently is just that: a browser vendor could choose to make a caption appear differently or not at all. E.g. maybe the default behavior of a caption is to only appear as a tooltip or not display at all. I don't know of any browsers that do this but they could. My guess is that for most browsers, the display for how the template used to look versus how it looks now is entirely identical. (All the more reason why I shouldn't have to spend days and days defending basic accessibility across a dozen pages.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, can you clarify which content here is conditional on the browser? Are you talking about "{{{TeamName|Unknown}}} roster"? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jweiss11, That's likely true: however a browser vendor chooses to display the caption (if at all) can vary. But yes, the take-away here is that this is very low-overhead to implement and the fact that I have to fight this battle over and over again is exhausting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seem likes this was resolved with a minor code change that had no impact on the rendered display. I am correct there? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, It certainly does. Thanks for working with me on this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I made some adjustments to Template:NFL roster, does this address your accessibility concerns? If so, I am satisfied as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, Headers provide semantic value for the structure of a document and captions provide semantic value for the meaning of a table. If you feel like they are redundant, then I would recommend adding running text to the section below the header that makes that section. Otherwise, it's okay for there to be a level three heading that says x followed by a table with a caption that says x. These semantic elements aren't made for your style preference, they are used for generating OPML outlines, helping search engines index, giving prompts to screen reading software, etc. Again, there is not a caption for these templates: you are stating something that is untrue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- You have still yet to explain why it is necessary to have two captions/headings that say nearly the same thing next to each other. "Team roster" is right above "New England Patriots roster". There is already a caption/header for all of these templates and they are not being placed in articles without context. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, They are not navboxes (no idea where you got that information) and they are tables. I really don't know how to help you if you're just explicitly denying reality: maybe check the page's source, where you will see a
- These are navigation templates, not tables, and I believe there is a distinction based on the MOS link you provided (the link, by the way, has a notice at the top of the page indicating it has not been vetted by the Wikipedia community yet). There doesn't need to be a caption if there is already a heading that properly describes the contents of the template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, This template is a table and it didn't have a caption before I added one: what are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eagles247, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alabama#You're_welcome --Brogo13 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Super Bowl teams
[edit]I wanted to let you know I re-reverted your edit re-ordering the teams in Super Bowl LIV. The 49ers are to be listed first because they were the designated "visitor." In American sports, it is standard convention to list the visiting team first. Visitor-Home order is also used for every other Super Bowl article, even when it would not be in alphabetical order (Such as Super Bowl LIII, where "visiting" New England is listed ahead of "host" Los Angeles. Frank AnchorTalk 13:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Frank Anchor, Thanks for the heads-up, Frank. Very considerate of you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)