User talk:Koavf/Archive056
 | 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An Award for you!
| File:Vsauceaward.png | The Vsauce Award |
| This is presented to you for asking and answering knowledgeable questions! Tsunami307 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC) |
- @Tsunami307: Thank you kindly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| You handled that ugly situation with grace and appropriate restraint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC) |
- @NorthBySouthBaranof: How kind of you to say, North. I've been trying to be more gracious as a person, particularly online, where tone doesn't always translate. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry it took me a little while to figure out what's what, Justin. My apologies. El_C 05:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- El C, No worries--you didn't do anything wrong by me, C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate your gracious reply. No, it took me too long to realize that user was engaging in provocations. El_C 06:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A Charlie Brown Christmas
Hi - any particular reason you deleted the Vince Guaraldi Trio chronology in the infobox from A Charlie Brown Christmas (soundtrack)? Cheers. 205.148.51.41 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't: it's still there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Army of Lovers compilation albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Army of Lovers compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Terumasa Hino albums
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 Category:Terumasa Hino albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
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. Dan arndt (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Terumasa Hino albums
In answer to your query I removed the categories from the redirects because standard practice, as per WP:REDIRECT - most redirect pages are not placed in article categories. Given that none of these pages are actually articles it is fairly evident that they should not be included in an album category. On this basis I would appreciate it if you revert your recent changes. Dan arndt (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dan arndt, While it is true that we generally do not categorize redirects alongside articles and so your edits are totally understandable, there is a decade-old consensus to categorize album redirects. Consequently, I'm sure you can understand why I will not revert. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Appreciate you pointing that out as I wasn't aware, noting that is just a guidance note not a policy. This is likely to be redundant in any case dependent upon the results of the CfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dan arndt, Again, totally understandable instinct and usually a best practice. Which CfD did you have in mind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Appreciate you pointing that out as I wasn't aware, noting that is just a guidance note not a policy. This is likely to be redundant in any case dependent upon the results of the CfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello Koavf,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:Sex- or gender-related stereotypes has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sex- or gender-related stereotypes, 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) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Using Template:Frac in Template:Album ratings
If you wish to start doing this, can you please get consensus at either Template talk:Album ratings or WT:MOSALBUM? I really hope this is not something you've started here and intend to carry on elsewhere. As I said in my edit summary to The Lookout (album), you have previously been concerned about font size in other templates, so why you have used fraction templates to render text even more minuscule in a template that already uses 85/90% font size baffles me—I could barely make out what those scores even said and I have fine eyesight. I have also never seen the fraction template utilised for this purpose, and that certainly tells me something—that most users don't consider it appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate nor correct, nor do I believe every score out of another should be treated as a fraction. You've also put decimal scores in fraction templates, which is just bizarre. If you reply here, I do not wish to be pinged. Thank you. Ss112 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, You posted here knowing that I would use the {{Ping}} template. I thought that it would be more semantically appropriate than "1/5" and I agree that it is not as easy to read. Additionally, this is exactly the sort of comment you know that I've asked you to not post here before. Please don't post on my talk page if you can't be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you are not forced to use the ping template, so do not act like you have to use it, because you don't. If a user asks you not to use it, I don't understand why you can't respect that request. Now, if you think my message above was "not nice", you are being incredibly oversensitive, and I would be more than happy to not post here if you want to be that sensitive. I posted here to provide a reason why I removed your use of fraction templates and to avoid you outright reverting me, which you've done before. Ss112 21:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Yes, and what you've done before is removed my talk page posts with undo, pinging me. I don't care for your, "Hey, you're secretly a hypocrite!" posts which are just pointless. You already explained your actions in your edit summary, which is exactly the place for it, so posting to my talk page was at best redundant but at worst is just another way to complain about and bother me, which you routinely do just to be annoying. Not because it has value in building an encyclopedia but because you have some ulterior motive. I have assumed good faith about your interactions for a long time and your actual edits to the content of the encyclopedia are almost always spot on but the way you talk to others and use talk pages as some kind of playground for personal sniping and fights is tiresome and something that others have noted as well. I'm not so overly sensitive that I have to make a personal rule that you can't post on my talk page: I'm asking that if you post here, you do so for its intended purpose rather than use it as an excuse for stealth attack on my character. The notice you have on your talk page to "Please be civil, and don't leave condescending messages" is a handy one and the fact that you posted here when you write of me that I "cannot engage in civil discussion"/"it is evident nothing productive will come from discussion." is telling: by your own admission, you think I can't engage civilly or productively, so... why did you post here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- What a load of rubbish. You are so busy accusing other people of doing and being things like you don't have more than enough users who don't like you and what you do that you don't see how annoying you are. Revert this message or remove this entire section and be done with it. My talk page notice doesn't go for how I interact with others on theirs. You are one of the most stubborn and tiring editors on this site and given your ANI thread that nobody's forgotten in a hurry, I think you're the bigger problem on this site out of the two of us. You can write another 1,100 byte diatribe if you want to get it out of your system Justin, but I'm done. Goodbye. Ss112 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, That's a lot of not answering my simple question, which is typical. I'm not surprised but still disappointed. Have a good day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- What a load of rubbish. You are so busy accusing other people of doing and being things like you don't have more than enough users who don't like you and what you do that you don't see how annoying you are. Revert this message or remove this entire section and be done with it. My talk page notice doesn't go for how I interact with others on theirs. You are one of the most stubborn and tiring editors on this site and given your ANI thread that nobody's forgotten in a hurry, I think you're the bigger problem on this site out of the two of us. You can write another 1,100 byte diatribe if you want to get it out of your system Justin, but I'm done. Goodbye. Ss112 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Yes, and what you've done before is removed my talk page posts with undo, pinging me. I don't care for your, "Hey, you're secretly a hypocrite!" posts which are just pointless. You already explained your actions in your edit summary, which is exactly the place for it, so posting to my talk page was at best redundant but at worst is just another way to complain about and bother me, which you routinely do just to be annoying. Not because it has value in building an encyclopedia but because you have some ulterior motive. I have assumed good faith about your interactions for a long time and your actual edits to the content of the encyclopedia are almost always spot on but the way you talk to others and use talk pages as some kind of playground for personal sniping and fights is tiresome and something that others have noted as well. I'm not so overly sensitive that I have to make a personal rule that you can't post on my talk page: I'm asking that if you post here, you do so for its intended purpose rather than use it as an excuse for stealth attack on my character. The notice you have on your talk page to "Please be civil, and don't leave condescending messages" is a handy one and the fact that you posted here when you write of me that I "cannot engage in civil discussion"/"it is evident nothing productive will come from discussion." is telling: by your own admission, you think I can't engage civilly or productively, so... why did you post here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you are not forced to use the ping template, so do not act like you have to use it, because you don't. If a user asks you not to use it, I don't understand why you can't respect that request. Now, if you think my message above was "not nice", you are being incredibly oversensitive, and I would be more than happy to not post here if you want to be that sensitive. I posted here to provide a reason why I removed your use of fraction templates and to avoid you outright reverting me, which you've done before. Ss112 21:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina clothing
A tag has been placed on Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina clothing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pete Davidson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
"Getz (Breaking Bad)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Getz (Breaking Bad). Since you had some involvement with the Getz (Breaking Bad) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
References next to dates on number-one lists
This is just not a thing we do, and is not done on any list, nor should it be. Were you just trying to find edits to make to articles I had edited recently after I edited a couple of pages you had edited today? It really seems like it. We're not sourcing the date. The source for the number one should be in a separate column at the end of the entry to signify that it sources the whole thing. You also added a WP:REPEATLINK. Overall, that was a strange edit to make. If you think it's an improvement, by all means, please open a discussion on the/a relevant article talk page. Ss112 05:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I'm always confused by your criticisms that consist of "This is not a thing we do" or "This doesn't need to be done" or "This is not as popular as it used to be", therefore don't do it. I don't think those are very compelling reasons to do or not do anything in particular. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, precedent and consistency are more "compelling" reasons than providing none at all. You also ignored the fact that I did provide a reason: the source doesn't pertain to the date, it pertains to the whole entry, which should affect its location. Ss112 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I'm assuming "Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks"" is an in-joke only you understand because I certainly don't. I provided several reasons to your zero. If you want to ignore that and act like I'm doing something I always do, then by all means... Ss112 05:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, It's not really a joke but it's an observation that you've decided to be rude and provocative (again) and you get pissy about me doing something that you did (again) and make specious claims (again). As soon as I saw that you posted here, I knew what to expect and you didn't disappoint (even if your behavior is still disappointing in some respects). I'm still confused as to why you post on my talk page when you think that I "cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion". Why is that? And your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're well aware on Wikipedia we place citations next to the text it applies to. We wouldn't put a citation next to a fraction of prose it applies to if it applies to a greater part. Same goes for tables: why would we place a citation in a different or earlier location in a table/table row when it applies to all of a row? I am sure there is a guideline about placement of citations and placing them next to the text they are a source for, but forgive me, I can't recall which one. Now for what else you said, literally nowhere in this thread have I been rude. I'm assuming from this point on you are hypersensitive to any criticism, can't take criticism, think anything I say to you is rude for the mere fact it comes from me, or you view it as "rude" any time an editor you have a history of disagreements with reverts you and comes to your talk page. That's what it seems like. You're the one engaging in digs at me every time I come here. You literally just made a joke at my expense and presumed I was rude from the moment I posted here. That is entirely hypocritical of you and I'm quite sure you also lack real self-awareness, which is a disappointment for any editor who has as many edits and done as much on Wikipedia as you, but probably not surprising. My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it. You can stop mentioning it now. Thanks. Ss112 05:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not "hanging in the ether". That's quite a vivid mischaracterisation to make having a dedicated column for the reference seem completely out of place, like it's some uncommon thing when it's far more common than placing a reference next to...the date. I don't suppose it will make any sense to you however I explain given your silly edit, so I'm out. I will revert any more edits like this that I come across considering you have still failed to provide a single reason why (other than what I assume is your personal preference, just like your rigid insistence on list-defined references) and I'm guessing you won't at such a late stage. Considering it's your talk page, do feel free to continue pinging me with a reply and a final dig, in typical Koavf style. Ss112 05:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, No reason to be rude, Ss. The reason to put the citation somewhere other than in a column of its own would be to shrink the size of the table itself and not to hide text using tooltips. Again, you are appealing to how common (you think) something is as tho it's normative and what I'm asking for is if there's any actual precedent written down anywhere other than what you've happened to notice. Otherwise, it's just anecdote versus anecdote, which is not particularly helpful to get anywhere. Oh, and I see you kept on adding in things again and again while I was responding: my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it kinda is still personal preference actually. Regarding the final dig you predictably made and repeated, I already said, and I quote: "My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it." This proves you read little of what I say, or are primarily interested in repeating yourself to the point of annoyance of other editors and/or trolling said editors. Are you a troll, Koavf? No? Then don't act like one. Tables do not need to be shrunk when they're not even that wide to begin with. If it were the width of the entire page, I might agree. This sounds like your personal preference yet again, which is not a valid reason. Sorry, Koavf. A column dedicated to references is not widening a table that much. Is it written down somewhere that tables that aren't wide need to be even smaller? If that's all you have, I regret replying. Ss112 06:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Was it supposed to be some funny in-joke when you used an underline to simulate inserting text? It's not trolling or a dig but a genuine question: if you think that someone cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion on your talk page then why post to his? What changes when you go to someone else's talk page that makes someone civil or more productive for discussion? You have no problem insisting that I answer your questions but you seem hyper-sensitive when I ask you to answer mine. Maybe you lack self-awareness... Also, my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Are you a troll? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming you are indeed a troll with that lame reply. Predictable as usual, Koavf—don't forget to ping me! Ss112 06:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I'll take that as a yes. As always, feel free to post here if you're going to be a decent person and feel free to not if you aren't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming you are indeed a troll with that lame reply. Predictable as usual, Koavf—don't forget to ping me! Ss112 06:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Was it supposed to be some funny in-joke when you used an underline to simulate inserting text? It's not trolling or a dig but a genuine question: if you think that someone cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion on your talk page then why post to his? What changes when you go to someone else's talk page that makes someone civil or more productive for discussion? You have no problem insisting that I answer your questions but you seem hyper-sensitive when I ask you to answer mine. Maybe you lack self-awareness... Also, my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Are you a troll? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it kinda is still personal preference actually. Regarding the final dig you predictably made and repeated, I already said, and I quote: "My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it." This proves you read little of what I say, or are primarily interested in repeating yourself to the point of annoyance of other editors and/or trolling said editors. Are you a troll, Koavf? No? Then don't act like one. Tables do not need to be shrunk when they're not even that wide to begin with. If it were the width of the entire page, I might agree. This sounds like your personal preference yet again, which is not a valid reason. Sorry, Koavf. A column dedicated to references is not widening a table that much. Is it written down somewhere that tables that aren't wide need to be even smaller? If that's all you have, I regret replying. Ss112 06:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, No reason to be rude, Ss. The reason to put the citation somewhere other than in a column of its own would be to shrink the size of the table itself and not to hide text using tooltips. Again, you are appealing to how common (you think) something is as tho it's normative and what I'm asking for is if there's any actual precedent written down anywhere other than what you've happened to notice. Otherwise, it's just anecdote versus anecdote, which is not particularly helpful to get anywhere. Oh, and I see you kept on adding in things again and again while I was responding: my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not "hanging in the ether". That's quite a vivid mischaracterisation to make having a dedicated column for the reference seem completely out of place, like it's some uncommon thing when it's far more common than placing a reference next to...the date. I don't suppose it will make any sense to you however I explain given your silly edit, so I'm out. I will revert any more edits like this that I come across considering you have still failed to provide a single reason why (other than what I assume is your personal preference, just like your rigid insistence on list-defined references) and I'm guessing you won't at such a late stage. Considering it's your talk page, do feel free to continue pinging me with a reply and a final dig, in typical Koavf style. Ss112 05:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're well aware on Wikipedia we place citations next to the text it applies to. We wouldn't put a citation next to a fraction of prose it applies to if it applies to a greater part. Same goes for tables: why would we place a citation in a different or earlier location in a table/table row when it applies to all of a row? I am sure there is a guideline about placement of citations and placing them next to the text they are a source for, but forgive me, I can't recall which one. Now for what else you said, literally nowhere in this thread have I been rude. I'm assuming from this point on you are hypersensitive to any criticism, can't take criticism, think anything I say to you is rude for the mere fact it comes from me, or you view it as "rude" any time an editor you have a history of disagreements with reverts you and comes to your talk page. That's what it seems like. You're the one engaging in digs at me every time I come here. You literally just made a joke at my expense and presumed I was rude from the moment I posted here. That is entirely hypocritical of you and I'm quite sure you also lack real self-awareness, which is a disappointment for any editor who has as many edits and done as much on Wikipedia as you, but probably not surprising. My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it. You can stop mentioning it now. Thanks. Ss112 05:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, It's not really a joke but it's an observation that you've decided to be rude and provocative (again) and you get pissy about me doing something that you did (again) and make specious claims (again). As soon as I saw that you posted here, I knew what to expect and you didn't disappoint (even if your behavior is still disappointing in some respects). I'm still confused as to why you post on my talk page when you think that I "cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion". Why is that? And your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I'm assuming "Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks"" is an in-joke only you understand because I certainly don't. I provided several reasons to your zero. If you want to ignore that and act like I'm doing something I always do, then by all means... Ss112 05:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, precedent and consistency are more "compelling" reasons than providing none at all. You also ignored the fact that I did provide a reason: the source doesn't pertain to the date, it pertains to the whole entry, which should affect its location. Ss112 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Author & Professional Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie
I have a request for help from you: Can you kindly provide me with some support for the Alan Roger Currie article that I created in April 2015?? I would VERY MUCH appreciate your support and assistance. Thank you. The Discussion is HERE Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I helped to fix Nintendo Switch software page that you flagged for lead lengthening
If it's okay, can I remove that tag? Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 22:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mac Henni, Sorry Mac, the page you linked is non-existent. Can you point me to which one you have in mind? Have you seen WP:LEAD before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: My fault. Here you go. Nintendo Switch system software is the correct one. i typed it wrong. Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 23:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and I always check with the tagging user, just to be on the same page. After all, I may not have the same goals as you :). As for your question about [[@WP:LEAD, I think that the tag description describes it well enough for me Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 23:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mac Henni, Thanks for checking. If you think it's good, I think it's good. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, then. I think that that's that then! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for helping me check the tag on Nintendo Switch system software, and for using WP:FAITH! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 00:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for starting this article. I noticed it as it is a redirect I created and had watchlisted. However, I wanted to ask, where did you get the genre and recording year from? I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but these are considered contentious details for most albums that a lot of users will take issue with if they're not directly cited. If you got pop rock from the sidebar of AllMusic, that's not considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. I checked out the AllMusic review and I scanned the news article cited, but I didn't see anywhere it said Loeb recorded the album in 2019. I could have missed it though. If you got it from somewhere, it'd be appreciated if you could provide a direct citation for it. Thanks. Ss112 05:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Thanks. Fell asleep listening to interviews with her. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
How were you able to move this page without leaving a redirect? I mean, from The Guy For This to Draft:The Guy for This, then from this to The Guy for This without leaving a redirect at both times? I want to be able to do the same for other pages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Formatting
- Continued from User_talk:CloversMallRat#Confusing_edit.
That's the correct template for the formatting of the tracklisting. It was used on both of her prior albums and it used in all other major album releases that I've come across. I also added several links for songwriters and the mention of the featured vocalist on one of the songs that you had missed when I switched the format. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, There's nothing normative about requiring the track listing template. Where are you getting the idea that it's the "correct" formatting? Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is your problem with the cleaner and sleeker look of the formatted tracklisting? I'm getting the idea that it is the "correct" formatting because it's used.... everywhere else. Her own last two albums. Golden Hour (album). Lover (album). etc. Literally every new album release by any remotely notable singer has adopted this. I can't remember the last time I even saw one formatted the way you're choosing to, unless it was like a country album release from like 1997. You also in reverting my edits for the format have now on several occasions removed information that I've added that once again you missed (in this case being the featured vocalist on track #7). Stop removing my edit. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, I think it's ugly, takes up a big block that it doesn't need to, doesn't flow with other block elements in the article, and is (usually) semantically inappropriate, as it's using tables to show non-tabular data. Please respect the fact that there is an established style on this page. How popular one style is versus another is irrelevant, so I don't know why you are telling me this. Additionally, Randy Newman is mentioned in the personnel section, which is an appropriate place to capture that information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care if you think it's ugly or takes up more space or whatever. It's literally the same format that was already in place for her last two album, so if the argument is cohesion, then you're the one switching things up here by using this primitive style (for a lack of better word) for the tracklisting, lol. Also, no, featured credits for vocalists belong in the tracklisting as well. He is credited on the song alongside her so it does not belong exclusively in the personnel section. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, So now you have undone my work four times on the article, which contravenes WP:3RR. Are you going to revert yourself and post to the talk page to seek consensus? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care if you think it's ugly or takes up more space or whatever. It's literally the same format that was already in place for her last two album, so if the argument is cohesion, then you're the one switching things up here by using this primitive style (for a lack of better word) for the tracklisting, lol. Also, no, featured credits for vocalists belong in the tracklisting as well. He is credited on the song alongside her so it does not belong exclusively in the personnel section. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, I think it's ugly, takes up a big block that it doesn't need to, doesn't flow with other block elements in the article, and is (usually) semantically inappropriate, as it's using tables to show non-tabular data. Please respect the fact that there is an established style on this page. How popular one style is versus another is irrelevant, so I don't know why you are telling me this. Additionally, Randy Newman is mentioned in the personnel section, which is an appropriate place to capture that information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is your problem with the cleaner and sleeker look of the formatted tracklisting? I'm getting the idea that it is the "correct" formatting because it's used.... everywhere else. Her own last two albums. Golden Hour (album). Lover (album). etc. Literally every new album release by any remotely notable singer has adopted this. I can't remember the last time I even saw one formatted the way you're choosing to, unless it was like a country album release from like 1997. You also in reverting my edits for the format have now on several occasions removed information that I've added that once again you missed (in this case being the featured vocalist on track #7). Stop removing my edit. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I was not online for a few days but I see now after catching up on the report you filed against me that I was found to be in no violation of any rule-breaking with my edit of formatting the tracklisting for Brandy's album to match her prior two (and the overwhelming majority of other Wikipedia articles for albums). As User:Amakuru stated in that discussion, the claims you made that I was unwilling to be reasoned with were incorrect as I explained my rationale for making the edit. Granted, I only even entered into said discussion with you after you had already reverted my first edit with the summary "Rv. No thanks." which is a pretty flippant remark for someone supposedly keen on discussion. It was only once you had done that that you messaged me personally and it seems obvious from your wording that you took my edit summary of "corrected tracklist formatting" as me telling you that you were 'wrong,' which was never my intent from the start. I think this was a misunderstanding. One thing that bothered me about that though is that beyond adding the formatting of the table, I did it in conjunction with adding missing links to songwriters and the missing featured credit (both indisputably valid & beneficial edits), and those were disregarded with the reverting. Lastly, to clarify the latter issue of adding the lead single to the infobox and forgetting a source: I legitimately forgot the source initially and when I added one, I did not use your method you had in place on the page because I 1) did not see the method that you were using for sources was different and 2) I've honestly never encountered said method before. Again, it was not with malicious intent.
- Anyway, all of this to say that I (and apparently the administrator that reviewed the dispute) do not believe there was anything inappropriate about my edits to Brandy Clark's page in order to make it cohesive with her previous two albums + the majority of similar articles for other recent mainstream album releases (country or otherwise). So with that in mind, I'd like to request that you allow the formatting change to stay without further needless disruption because we're all on the same side here and I have no qualms about anything else you're doing. Cheers. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, You gave no reason for changing an existing style, so how much reason should I give in reverting it? Please see WP:BRD, please post to talk, please seek consensus, please respect established styles. I don't think you have malicious intent: I do think that you are using faulty logic and irrelevant reasoning to make things the way you like, which is not appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Once again false, as I said several times why I changed the 'existing style' because it was an intent to mirror her prior two albums and the majority of other articles on Wikipedia. The administrator who dismissed your libel against me said the exact same thing, too. You also seem to be addressing me as if you have some sort of superiority over me because you created the page and established what you believe to be is a consistent 'style' (none of the other stylistic choices you may or may not have made on the article have a single thing to do with the edit for the tracklisting anyway) that gives you some sort of high ground over my edit, which it doesn't, because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. And who all even reads talk pages to be able to weigh in on this matter for that to be an effective way to handle this? One who would think that taking a quick look around and realizing that the edit I've attempted on Brandy's page is the standard norm for tracklisting sections on every other album article being created for major artists on Wikipedia right now is consensus enough. I am not imposing some radical new format. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, I don't like you making weird allegations like libel. Please back off on that nonsense. I've made my points on the talk page, so I won't go into them here but: 1.) just because something else has [x] doesn't mean this should have [x] (for that matter, I'm not convinced that the track listing template is more used) and 2.) there's nothing superior about an established style: it just is that style. There are reasons to use the template and reasons to use an ordered list. Since there are reasons to do either and we can only do one, deferring to what is already the standard is the default without a really compelling argument. You don't have one, so things should stay how they were. You started off with the ridiculous claim that you were "correcting" something that wasn't incorrect and now you're grasping for straws as to why this should change to what you like. Who cares if a Billie EIlish album article uses {{track listing}}? What does that have to do with WP:ALBUM's style guide and how no single format is normative? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well if you don't think the tabular format is more commonly used after I both 1) provided a number of high profile examples of album articles that use it that are much more heavily-contributed-to by a number of editors (compared to a page where you've single-handedly done most of the work without aid from others -- and when others have tried to help it's led to these shenanigans) and 2) just common sense from being able to wander around on Wikipedia and look at things with your own eyes for yourself and see the amount of usage it receives, then idk what else to say on that front. You also keep bringing up the "correcting" comment again after I explained that there was no malicious intent behind it because I did not make that part of my edit summary as a direction at any editor (you or otherwise), so speaking of backing off on 'nonsense.' I merely saw that it did not match the format of her previous two album tracklistings and made a change. I probably should've just left the edit summary blank because it clearly set you off from the jump and that's really how we got where we are. Your whole argument seems to pretty much boil down to: either method works, but you created the article so you have final say over what goes because you took the initiative to impose a certain 'style' and any Wikipedia editor who contributes to the page now must adhere to your preferences. Also in regards to the first point, you literally reported me like I was a common troll and even tailored your argument as such (like at one point saying I responded with "lol" when it was merely one word in a paragraph response). The administrator saw through it though and not only dismissed your report against me but also acknowledged that I made attempts to engage in discussion and offered rationale for my edits, both things you initially claimed I didn't do and/or ignored. So, regardless of what tracklisting format ultimately is imposed on the page, I know the only real mistake I made is getting sucked into this pointless mess. I've got better things to do, lol. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, I have probably edited more album articles than anyone on Wikipedia: easily over 100,000. "High-profile examples" are by definition not the majority so I don't know how that would prove that a majority of cases use the template. I never said that you had malicious intent, so I don't know why you keep on saying that you didn't: no one is disputing that. If you don't want to get "sucked into this", then just leave the perfectly fine article the way it was before you decided that you wanted to edit war to your preferred format. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well if you don't think the tabular format is more commonly used after I both 1) provided a number of high profile examples of album articles that use it that are much more heavily-contributed-to by a number of editors (compared to a page where you've single-handedly done most of the work without aid from others -- and when others have tried to help it's led to these shenanigans) and 2) just common sense from being able to wander around on Wikipedia and look at things with your own eyes for yourself and see the amount of usage it receives, then idk what else to say on that front. You also keep bringing up the "correcting" comment again after I explained that there was no malicious intent behind it because I did not make that part of my edit summary as a direction at any editor (you or otherwise), so speaking of backing off on 'nonsense.' I merely saw that it did not match the format of her previous two album tracklistings and made a change. I probably should've just left the edit summary blank because it clearly set you off from the jump and that's really how we got where we are. Your whole argument seems to pretty much boil down to: either method works, but you created the article so you have final say over what goes because you took the initiative to impose a certain 'style' and any Wikipedia editor who contributes to the page now must adhere to your preferences. Also in regards to the first point, you literally reported me like I was a common troll and even tailored your argument as such (like at one point saying I responded with "lol" when it was merely one word in a paragraph response). The administrator saw through it though and not only dismissed your report against me but also acknowledged that I made attempts to engage in discussion and offered rationale for my edits, both things you initially claimed I didn't do and/or ignored. So, regardless of what tracklisting format ultimately is imposed on the page, I know the only real mistake I made is getting sucked into this pointless mess. I've got better things to do, lol. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, I don't like you making weird allegations like libel. Please back off on that nonsense. I've made my points on the talk page, so I won't go into them here but: 1.) just because something else has [x] doesn't mean this should have [x] (for that matter, I'm not convinced that the track listing template is more used) and 2.) there's nothing superior about an established style: it just is that style. There are reasons to use the template and reasons to use an ordered list. Since there are reasons to do either and we can only do one, deferring to what is already the standard is the default without a really compelling argument. You don't have one, so things should stay how they were. You started off with the ridiculous claim that you were "correcting" something that wasn't incorrect and now you're grasping for straws as to why this should change to what you like. Who cares if a Billie EIlish album article uses {{track listing}}? What does that have to do with WP:ALBUM's style guide and how no single format is normative? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Once again false, as I said several times why I changed the 'existing style' because it was an intent to mirror her prior two albums and the majority of other articles on Wikipedia. The administrator who dismissed your libel against me said the exact same thing, too. You also seem to be addressing me as if you have some sort of superiority over me because you created the page and established what you believe to be is a consistent 'style' (none of the other stylistic choices you may or may not have made on the article have a single thing to do with the edit for the tracklisting anyway) that gives you some sort of high ground over my edit, which it doesn't, because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. And who all even reads talk pages to be able to weigh in on this matter for that to be an effective way to handle this? One who would think that taking a quick look around and realizing that the edit I've attempted on Brandy's page is the standard norm for tracklisting sections on every other album article being created for major artists on Wikipedia right now is consensus enough. I am not imposing some radical new format. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- CloversMallRat, You gave no reason for changing an existing style, so how much reason should I give in reverting it? Please see WP:BRD, please post to talk, please seek consensus, please respect established styles. I don't think you have malicious intent: I do think that you are using faulty logic and irrelevant reasoning to make things the way you like, which is not appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Black Mirror images for deletion
It is rude and aggressive to nominate many images on Black Mirror episode articles in separate consecutive "Files for discussion"s in the manner in which you have done. If you had concerns on this, you should have first raised them at a forum like Talk:Black Mirror given that many of the articles are GAs and FAs. Based on the speed of your nominations, I trust that you have not seen consensus for individual images at places like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Junipero/archive2, nor read the individual fair use rationales written with NFCC#8 in mind, nor read the articles and observed how the caption justifies the image under NFCC#8, or why the image is necessary to understanding a facet of each article. — Bilorv (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, I don't think it's rude or aggressive: I just nominated images that had unjustifiable use as I saw them. I did in fact read the fair use rationales which were (almost?) all "key moment of episode" which is not a valid reason. You have the misapprehension that because they were nominated in short order, I therefore didn't have several tabs open and look at several things before pressing the button to nominate them for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- It comes across as rude and aggressive. I would rather see this in a central location than be bombarded with deletion notice spam on my talk page. If you performed due diligence then you should have found different contexts for many of the images, and offered specific deletion rationales for each image rather than the same copy-and-pasted message. For instance, at San Junipero you should have read that:
The scene, visual style of the episode and characterisation of Kelly and Yorkie are discussed extensively in the Plot, Analysis and Critical reception sections of the article
(after an explanation of how the image demonstrates each of these attributes). Whether or not you agree with this, you should comment on it in a deletion rationale. Instead you wrote that the image wasnot used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration
. That's not a good faith reading of the image rationale. I see now that you've not nominated images for every episode, which makes me think that you believe some of the episode images' fair use rationales to be acceptable. Perhaps it would have been better to open with this and then discussing how the 10 episodes you've distinguished are different from the other 12, and whether it's possible to strengthen rationales, use a better image or whether nothing is appropriate unless the article is further developed, or ever. — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)- Bilorv, I can't speak to how it came across to you, I can only say what I intended and that I've never gotten that feedback in over a dozen years proposing media at FFD with several hundred deletions and a 98%+ success rate. I hope you understand, that was not my intention. Not sure how deletion notices are spam. There have been many times when I have nominated dozens of files a day and never even had someone suggest it was rude or ask me to have a centralized discussion (isn't that what FFD is?) so this is all confusing to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you'll reply also to my comments made about why your rationales are not detailed enough, if not here then either at Talk:Black Mirror or the FFD discussions. I would also appreciate constructive attempts to find better images if you believe any exist (which I suppose you likely do, given the 12 images you didn't nominate). I have limited free time and I can't simultaneously find ten better images and ten convincing arguments for them in a week, particularly when I don't understand the difference between images you have and haven't nominated for deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, I do not feel that there are better images as I have never seen these television episodes. As you point out, some episodes have totally acceptable screen captures: e.g. ones that explicitly discuss the actual aesthetic, visual effects, etc. that really require an image to explain something that can't be captured in text. A screen cap of a guy standing in a street with the rationale "key moment from episode" is not acceptable. I don't know that my rationales are not detailed enough, as the burden of proof is on the uploader--that's really for the community to decide, but again, they've decided in my favor somewhere around a thousand times, so I think that I have a good feel for this. I appreciate that you have limited time, note that FFD lasts for several days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I did say that it lasted for a week, but I don't think you appreciate the many hours of discussion, suggestion and collaboration it would take to do the topic of the episode images justice. The articles are available for you to read even if the episodes are not available for you to view, so you should be able to suggest facets of the episode which are discussed sufficiently in the article and may be able to be depicted by images. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, Elements of the plot being key moments are irrelevant for including non-free media. What matters is that the media itself (audio, photo, video, etc.) is something that can't be explained via the text in any realistic way. The test here would be if I read the articles and they tried to describe some unique visual elements and I couldn't really get what the authors are trying to say but an image would make it sink in. That's true in some of these episodes, hence I didn't nominate the media in them for deletion. In others, it's just a guy standing in a street: that should never have been uploaded in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I did say that it lasted for a week, but I don't think you appreciate the many hours of discussion, suggestion and collaboration it would take to do the topic of the episode images justice. The articles are available for you to read even if the episodes are not available for you to view, so you should be able to suggest facets of the episode which are discussed sufficiently in the article and may be able to be depicted by images. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, I do not feel that there are better images as I have never seen these television episodes. As you point out, some episodes have totally acceptable screen captures: e.g. ones that explicitly discuss the actual aesthetic, visual effects, etc. that really require an image to explain something that can't be captured in text. A screen cap of a guy standing in a street with the rationale "key moment from episode" is not acceptable. I don't know that my rationales are not detailed enough, as the burden of proof is on the uploader--that's really for the community to decide, but again, they've decided in my favor somewhere around a thousand times, so I think that I have a good feel for this. I appreciate that you have limited time, note that FFD lasts for several days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you'll reply also to my comments made about why your rationales are not detailed enough, if not here then either at Talk:Black Mirror or the FFD discussions. I would also appreciate constructive attempts to find better images if you believe any exist (which I suppose you likely do, given the 12 images you didn't nominate). I have limited free time and I can't simultaneously find ten better images and ten convincing arguments for them in a week, particularly when I don't understand the difference between images you have and haven't nominated for deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv, I can't speak to how it came across to you, I can only say what I intended and that I've never gotten that feedback in over a dozen years proposing media at FFD with several hundred deletions and a 98%+ success rate. I hope you understand, that was not my intention. Not sure how deletion notices are spam. There have been many times when I have nominated dozens of files a day and never even had someone suggest it was rude or ask me to have a centralized discussion (isn't that what FFD is?) so this is all confusing to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- It comes across as rude and aggressive. I would rather see this in a central location than be bombarded with deletion notice spam on my talk page. If you performed due diligence then you should have found different contexts for many of the images, and offered specific deletion rationales for each image rather than the same copy-and-pasted message. For instance, at San Junipero you should have read that:
8
Was the article for the Billie Eilish song "8" accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatleswillneverdie (talk • contribs)
- @Beatleswillneverdie: I don't know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Scrolling
Was it deliberate to disable scrolling on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, with edit summary "Internal scrollbars are not accessible", I take it you meant they are not available on mobile, because otherwise they worked fine prior to your edit. Sun Creator(talk) 14:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sun Creator, I did not mean that: I don't know anything about mobile devices. I meant Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sun Creator(talk) 15:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sun Creator, Thanks for asking. If you were confused, someone else probably was as well and that's my fault. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sun Creator(talk) 15:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Brandy Clark
Template:Brandy Clark has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleting charts sections when articles have other unsourced sections
Hi. I was wondering why you are deleting entire sections from George Jones' album articles when most of the articles, presumably for being unsourced, when for example We Love to Sing About Jesus, contain paragraphs of unsourced prose, some with claims which ought to be sourced, which you are leaving alone. Would it not be better to be consistent and delete those too? Ss112 02:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, It would be better. Just trying to get thru a certain task before I fall asleep and only devoting [x] concentration per article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Made a Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Accessibility
You will need to clearly explain what the issue is. Discussion is Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data#Scrolling Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Removal of content at Sufjan Stevens discography
On Sufjan Stevens discography, may I ask why you removed the font size reductions for featured/guest artists? From my experience, small font sizes are typically applied to visually separate the title of a work from other artists involved with the project. I find this prevents confusion to the reader, making an obvious stylistic separation. Ping me if you reply, please. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC).
- Carbrera, I am primarily concerned with the misuse of the <small> HTML tag, then readability, then consistency. If someone wants to convert improper HTML to a semantically correct template, I would certainly prefer he wouldn't because it would be harder to read but if someone does at least that, I would prefer that it be done in a way that's consistent among all of the parenthetical notes. This isn't print, so there is no reason why we need smaller text--why would we have that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Bill Rieflin
On 25 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill Rieflin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Spencer: Thanks. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pop albums by Gibraltarian artists
A tag has been placed on Category:Pop albums by Gibraltarian 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! 16:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No disrespect, mate, I thank you for the addition to Up as it and New Adventures in Hi-Fi are my their favourite records and their longest albums. I really thought that Bertis Down and Jefferson Holt didn't deserve a place on the table, but it's your decision and I respect it. I look further in collaborations with you.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)
- @The Mad Hatter: Thanks for the kind words--I look forward to working with you as well. It's not really up to us to say who deserves to be a member of R.E.M.: the band said that they're in the band. We can't really argue with who is in the group. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Award content deletion
Hi. I've noticed that you are deleting the award nomination and wins content in multiple articles involving multiple programs. Could you please explain why you are doing this? Shabidoo | Talk 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Shabidoo, Per WP:V. Everything needs a source and many of these don't have them. For the ones that do, I leave them be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, it doesn't hurt to do a little homework as well. Normally award content if easily verifiable and I've found them to be almost always correct even when the author forgot to leave their soruce. It's fairly easy to check with sources that aren't hard to find if the info is correct and then add the link. That way you are improving the article instead of deleting useful information another user spent a fair bit of time entering and formatting. It also wouldn't hurt to contact the user who added in all this information. They may be easily able to simply add their sources. Shabidoo | Talk 11:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Shabidoo, That is much, much more work that I would be obliged to do to fix someone else's mistakes (or hoaxes or lies). Yes, we can always put forth much more effort to make Wikipedia better. I work on this encyclopedia for hours every day and I've been using it for 17 years. How much more do I need to do? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, it doesn't hurt to do a little homework as well. Normally award content if easily verifiable and I've found them to be almost always correct even when the author forgot to leave their soruce. It's fairly easy to check with sources that aren't hard to find if the info is correct and then add the link. That way you are improving the article instead of deleting useful information another user spent a fair bit of time entering and formatting. It also wouldn't hurt to contact the user who added in all this information. They may be easily able to simply add their sources. Shabidoo | Talk 11:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"The Tune (flim)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Tune (flim). Since you had some involvement with the The Tune (flim) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring over template protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Infobox U.S. state symbols
Hi, sorry, about Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols, we can talk at the discussion there, but MOS:SCROLL has more to say than the bolded text. The reason that text can be collapsed by default, per MOS:SCROLL, is if that text is just a table repeating information already included in the article. Since all 50 states have sections title "State symbols", I think this applies, and the template can be set to be collapsed by default. Happy to discuss further if you see it another way.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Patrickneil, Are you sure that all of the places where this is used and will be used replicate the text of the article? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Ss112
Hi Koavf. I have been approached by Ss112 who is concerned that you may be watching his talk page and then engaging in unfriendly editing based on issues that pop up there. While I don't know the background, and would prefer not to go there, I am generally aware that the two of you are not exactly on each other's Christmas card list. Also I have not gone digging around his talk page editing history and tried to cross check to see if there is any pattern between your editing and what shows up on his page. So this should be regarded as a gentle and informal reminder that while there is no rule against watchlisting another editor's talk page, it is considered bad form to follow them around on pages that are of interest to them. This should not be understood as any imputation of bad faith editing on my part. However I would ask that you please be sensitive to this concern, and to the extent reasonable, kindly try and keep some distance between your editing and Ss112's. I do realize that you have overlapping areas of interest so this may not be possible in all circumstances. But your cooperation here, as far as practicable would be greatly appreciated. I really would rather that we avoid any unnecessary unpleasantness here. Thank you for your long history of commitment to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Do you have any diffs or pages in particular? I know of instances of the opposite: where he edited articles that I created and he had never edited before seemingly out of nowhere. Maybe that's what you have in mind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not have any diffs. As I stated above, I have not done any looking around in editing history for either of you. That said, I will clarify my above comment to indicate that this is not a one way request. Ss112 is likewise asked to avoid editing pages that he knows are of high interest to you. If both of you will make an effort to avoid stepping on one anothers' toes, that would go a long ways towards keeping temperatures down and curbing suspicions of unfriendly editing, by either of you. This is not the first, and certainly won't be the last instance where, sadly, two highly experienced editors have ended up on acrimonious terms with one another. In almost every instance it is to everybody's advantage if a personal conflict can be deescalated before it becomes a problem requiring a more formal intervention either by administrators or the community more broadly. I have seen this sort of thing before and if it lands at ANI or one of the other drama boards, the likelihood of a happy ending is low. Let's all try to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Maybe you can both have a conversation somewhere and agree on terms to limit your interactions with another. In any event, I am here on an informal basis for now and would like to keep things that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Yep, an unfortunate circumstance to be sure. I don't have any clear action items from this but it's nice of you to be so diplomatic. While he's experienced and definitely adds value with many of his edits, I do not feel like Ss112 acts in good faith and is an outright hostile and negative editor and person. I have been contacted off-wiki several times about his rude and inappropriate behavior and I'm sure you've seen it yourself but somehow, he's like Teflon and nothing seems to stick to him. If I could avoid him entirely, that would be great but as you can see from my talk page, he comes here periodically just to annoy me. He's done the same on third party talk pages where he has stalked my edits. And now he's done it again. It's a sad cycle that I can't really control but I don't see any changes in his behavior until and unless someone forces it. That falls outside the scope of your message but it's related to the inciting incident and ongoing behavior from him. Again, thanks for posting and reading all this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I am hopeful that both of you will do what you can to do a little on wiki "social distancing." If there is a desire to discuss some sort of mutual agreement that would spell things out in more detail, I am happy to provide a place for that conversation (given that communication on your respective talk pages seems to have broken down). Thanks again for your letting me hear your side of this and doing what you can to keep this from becoming the latest Featured Event on the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, No worries, man. Thanks for offering to referee--it's thankless free labor. I've seen your name a few times over the years and you seem to do good work. If I had the time and energy, I would spell out all of the problems with his editing but I frankly don't. If you can look at all his posts on my talk and tell me what he's written isn't hostile and inappropriate, I don't know what to say. Again, that's not what the purpose was of you posting, so I realize that's added labor but if you're serious about investigating what has happened here, I'd recommend you take a look at some very inappropriate language that he's used here in addition to subtly gaming the system, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't remain quiet on this when I've been pinged here multiple times. Koavf, you constantly talk about my rude behaviour and like I come here to "annoy" you. No, I come here over issues with your edits on articles, not to have a pointless, time-consuming argument with you. The intent is not to "annoy" you. I would prefer I not have to interact with you ever. Why would other editors have approached you about me? Are you my parent? I find this dubious or an outright lie, but on that note, I myself have talked to at least five other editors in recent memory who have spoken about Koavf's own rude and hostile behaviour that he exhibits around the place. As for "third party talk pages", you are obviously referring to Lk95's talk page, where we had an argument after you dropped Lk95 a message about Lk95's edit to a Brandy Clark album article you've edit warred on, related to something you had just reverted me for on another article. Lk95 and I have talked many times and his talk page is on my watchlist, so that's how I saw it. I didn't need to "stalk" anybody to see it. As for "just done it again", where? Koavf, you know very well earlier today you joined the RfD discussion I was notified of on my talk page by Steel1943, and only that discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Queen for a Day (album). I fail to see how else you would have happened across that discussion. Then you edited the redirects I created mentioned at the discussion. I'm well aware I have edited pages you've created, for example if articles you've started have charted. That's about all I can recall. I'm not interested in a back-and-forth here. I'm clarifying. Don't try and twist what you've done to me back around on you and play the victim. Thanks. Now I'm being accused of "gaming the system". How? If you're going to throw out baseless accusations, have proof. Ss112 01:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I don't recall pinging you and I don't know who did. I think this conversation is between two individuals and you are not included. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, Ad Orientem did. Multiple times. See above. Ss112 01:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Okay. I've asked you to stop posting here and you've posted again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, unless I am mistaken, you asked me to stop posting here if I had "nothing nice" to say, not to stop posting here entirely. But regardless, fine. I have no need to if you anymore if you stop editing pages soon after me, or perusing my talk page and editing based off that, and stop trying to flip things to make yourself the victim. I'm well aware I've been rude and said harsh things to people. I'm not excusing it nor have I ever said I'm perfect. Things annoy me. Just as things annoy you, or any editor. You have also said plenty of harsh things back to me, like on Lk95's talk page. But I have not "subtly gamed any system", whatever that means without any explanation from you. Thank you. Ss112 01:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, My last two posts implicitly told you to stop. This is the third post you've made where you're not welcome. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, unless I am mistaken, you asked me to stop posting here if I had "nothing nice" to say, not to stop posting here entirely. But regardless, fine. I have no need to if you anymore if you stop editing pages soon after me, or perusing my talk page and editing based off that, and stop trying to flip things to make yourself the victim. I'm well aware I've been rude and said harsh things to people. I'm not excusing it nor have I ever said I'm perfect. Things annoy me. Just as things annoy you, or any editor. You have also said plenty of harsh things back to me, like on Lk95's talk page. But I have not "subtly gamed any system", whatever that means without any explanation from you. Thank you. Ss112 01:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Okay. I've asked you to stop posting here and you've posted again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, Ad Orientem did. Multiple times. See above. Ss112 01:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I don't recall pinging you and I don't know who did. I think this conversation is between two individuals and you are not included. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I am hopeful that both of you will do what you can to do a little on wiki "social distancing." If there is a desire to discuss some sort of mutual agreement that would spell things out in more detail, I am happy to provide a place for that conversation (given that communication on your respective talk pages seems to have broken down). Thanks again for your letting me hear your side of this and doing what you can to keep this from becoming the latest Featured Event on the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Yep, an unfortunate circumstance to be sure. I don't have any clear action items from this but it's nice of you to be so diplomatic. While he's experienced and definitely adds value with many of his edits, I do not feel like Ss112 acts in good faith and is an outright hostile and negative editor and person. I have been contacted off-wiki several times about his rude and inappropriate behavior and I'm sure you've seen it yourself but somehow, he's like Teflon and nothing seems to stick to him. If I could avoid him entirely, that would be great but as you can see from my talk page, he comes here periodically just to annoy me. He's done the same on third party talk pages where he has stalked my edits. And now he's done it again. It's a sad cycle that I can't really control but I don't see any changes in his behavior until and unless someone forces it. That falls outside the scope of your message but it's related to the inciting incident and ongoing behavior from him. Again, thanks for posting and reading all this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not have any diffs. As I stated above, I have not done any looking around in editing history for either of you. That said, I will clarify my above comment to indicate that this is not a one way request. Ss112 is likewise asked to avoid editing pages that he knows are of high interest to you. If both of you will make an effort to avoid stepping on one anothers' toes, that would go a long ways towards keeping temperatures down and curbing suspicions of unfriendly editing, by either of you. This is not the first, and certainly won't be the last instance where, sadly, two highly experienced editors have ended up on acrimonious terms with one another. In almost every instance it is to everybody's advantage if a personal conflict can be deescalated before it becomes a problem requiring a more formal intervention either by administrators or the community more broadly. I have seen this sort of thing before and if it lands at ANI or one of the other drama boards, the likelihood of a happy ending is low. Let's all try to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Maybe you can both have a conversation somewhere and agree on terms to limit your interactions with another. In any event, I am here on an informal basis for now and would like to keep things that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note I pinged Ss112 as what I was writing had relevance to him. In general when you tell someone not to post on your talk page, that is the wiki equivalent to breaking diplomatic relations and it is not a one way street. If you tell someone to stay off your talk page, it is, with very few exceptions, expected you will stay off the other's as well. Beyond that I do not want this to turn into a lot of finger pointing and recounting of who did what to whom in the past. That is a dead end and nothing positive will come of it. If there is a desire to converse I am prepared to host a discussion in a neutral page environment. For now I would ask that you both try to avoid antagonizing one another and just accept that for whatever reasons, you have not gotten on. I am requesting that you both desist in communicating on your respective talk pages. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Good deal. To be clear, I have never told Ss112 that he can't post here, only that he can only post under certain conditions. I'm happy to have his feedback if it's constructive so while it's generally considered a mutual arrangement, I'm not going to bar him from my talk (minus a conversation where he's been told to not intrude and minus any instances where he is rude or otherwise inappropriate). Where, in principle, would be a place to talk that you think is a neutral territory? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Orientem/Switzerland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Thumbs up emoji. If you're willing to initiate and ping us both, that's great. Otherwise, not sure how to start the process since by definition, it's been fraught. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in discussion with Ss112. I will get back to you shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. For the present Ss112 has declined my invitation to discussion. All I can suggest is to try and minimize interactions to the extent reasonably possible. That obviously applies to him as well. Hopefully that will be enough. If it is not, then this may have to be handled more formally. Sigh... It's getting late here and I am about to sign off. If you need to bring anything to my attention, not limited to this issue, please drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, How kind. Sweet dreams. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am having a difficult time squaring your edit at Glorious (Ella Henderson song) with what we discussed last night, and in particular my request that you try to avoid antagonizing Ss112. Seriously. If this does end up at ANI that sort of thing is not going to look good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, I didn't think there was anything inappropriate about my edits. Is there something wrong with the content of what I added? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Re-reading what you wrote above and the thread at that user's talk, he thinks that you told me to remove his talk page and I'm not seeing that. If anything, I thought that doing this administrative work would be helpful to him because it gets something out of the way. I don't see how that's antagonistic. Nothing I wrote in the content of the article or the edit summaries or elsewhere was in any way directed to him or intended to do anything to hurt his feelings or reputation: it just removed one thing from his to-do. Is that wrong? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Content... no. But WP:HOUNDING other editors is a serious no no. You have been asked, repeatedly to stop watching Ss112's talk page and jumping into issues or topics raised there. This really is starting to look like deliberate stalking. You were very clearly asked to avoid Ss112 as far as possible. Please stop. You should regard this as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Sounds good. Thanks. If you would be willing to fix the Musicbrainz link there to a6c24c9c-7c0f-40e2-b1ea-08bbc826cbdd that would be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) My spidey senses tell me our next port of call will be here given Justin doesn't seem to understand what they've done and are continuing to do wrong. –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Content... no. But WP:HOUNDING other editors is a serious no no. You have been asked, repeatedly to stop watching Ss112's talk page and jumping into issues or topics raised there. This really is starting to look like deliberate stalking. You were very clearly asked to avoid Ss112 as far as possible. Please stop. You should regard this as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am having a difficult time squaring your edit at Glorious (Ella Henderson song) with what we discussed last night, and in particular my request that you try to avoid antagonizing Ss112. Seriously. If this does end up at ANI that sort of thing is not going to look good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, How kind. Sweet dreams. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. For the present Ss112 has declined my invitation to discussion. All I can suggest is to try and minimize interactions to the extent reasonably possible. That obviously applies to him as well. Hopefully that will be enough. If it is not, then this may have to be handled more formally. Sigh... It's getting late here and I am about to sign off. If you need to bring anything to my attention, not limited to this issue, please drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in discussion with Ss112. I will get back to you shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Thumbs up emoji. If you're willing to initiate and ping us both, that's great. Otherwise, not sure how to start the process since by definition, it's been fraught. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Orientem/Switzerland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time. Since you had some involvement with the The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ella Henderson - Glorious.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ella Henderson - Glorious.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) 02:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sports coaches in South Dakota
A tag has been placed on Category:Sports coaches in South Dakota 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.
Please see:
- Category:Sports coaches from South Dakota
- Category:American sports coaches by state
- and this edit of mine.
--DB1729 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
"The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
"The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please stop following me already?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You obviously looked at my edits to edit Bloom*Iz after me. You were already asked to stop looking at my edits and editing articles after me by @Ad Orientem: so please stop. You have no reason to still be doing so. I don't know where this came from; because I edited The New Abnormal? I have no idea. But I have no interest in editing articles after you, so stop doing it to me. I don't want to have to drag up a whole bunch of unnecessary drama at ANI when you can easily stop stalking or hounding me. Thank you. Ss112 08:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, No clue what you're talking about: I was editing several articles on List of 2020 albums and Category:2020 albums. Some stood out because they were purple links (i.e. I had edited them before) and some had some funny typography so I clicked on them. Please see my edit history and please do not make up lies about me. You are hyper-sensitive about what you claim to be stalking and it's now WP:OWN territory, particularly when I am making very uncontroversial edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh my God. Who are you expecting to believe this? @Ad Orientem and Davey2010: Bloom*Iz isn't even listed at List of 2020 albums, and there is no way anyone is going to believe you decided to edit that article out of hundreds of articles in a category right after I did. You found it and edited it not long after I did, and you explicitly targeted what I did on the article. Please stop making up lame excuses. This is not something you stumbled onto by chance. Ss112 08:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, As I wrote, it looked funny and is in Category:2020 albums. Please do not abuse Wikipedia:Rollback or else you will have those rights removed. I don't know that you want more eyes on your edits when you are abusing your privileges. I did not go about stalking your edits and I did not even know that you had ever edited The New Abnormal as it's not on my watch list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- People use rollback for that purpose all the time, so in that case, every user should have their rollback rights revoked. Koavf, this is a seriously pathetic excuse even for you. Nobody, if I filed this at ANI, would believe you stumbled on an article I edited only earlier, out of hundreds listed at a category, especially after you were told by an administrator to leave me and my edits alone. Is this the excuse you're going to use now when you edit an article not long after I do and continue to target what I've done on that article? Final time I ask: Leave me and my edits alone, or I will take it to ANI. I am not levelling empty threats. If you do not stop following me to articles and targeting my edit on them right after I've edited them, I will ask admins to intervene further. This is straight-up Wikihounding. Find something better to do than stalk my contributions. Ss112 08:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I have no clue what you edit because I don't hound/stalk/follow you. Please don't abuse Rollback in the future. If you don't understand what the proper purposes are of rollback, I have listed them below:
- To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
- To revert edits in your own user pages
- To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
- To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
- To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, You did that thing you do where you edit your comments without adding any markup while I'm responding to you. I did not undo what you did on the page (I never saw what you did as I never looked at the edit history) but what you evidently did was not adding the caption that I removed. I was not undoing what you did as I didn't know you had done it and you didn't add that in the first place. Please stop abusing rollback and escalating things. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I did not abuse rollback; everyone who has rollback has used it for that purpose. Don't sidetrack the discussion. Are you seriously expecting me, or anyone, to believe that this is coincidence? This is the exact reason I did not want to have a pointless conversation with you to "work out differences". You are condescending in the extreme, and you are an experienced Wikipedia editor with two million edits making up incredible excuses no other user of this website would believe to excuse that you edited an article soon after me, when you were given a formal caution by an administrator to stop hounding me. @Ad Orientem: It looks like this is the excuse Koavf is going to resort to now to get around being told to stop following me: "it was in a category, and I decided to choose that article out of hundreds to edit, coincidentally right after you". Koavf, this is not something anyone is going to fall for. Grow up, and find better things to do on Wikipedia than hound and harass editors like myself. Ss112 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Earlier today, I made articles for albums released in 2018 and 2020. I routinely add "List of albums released in [year]" to album articles I make. I also tried to go about harmonizing the category with the list but that was way too much work for me to do at 4:00. It seems like you are very upset, so I recommend muting me. Please do not abuse rollback and please do not escalate this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, Oh, you did that thing where you edited your comments without adding any markup while I'm responding to you. Please don't do that anymore. I don't see anything constructive coming from this thread, so please go about all of the otherwise very helpful edits that you are apt to make on Wikipedia and do not abuse rollback or edit your comments repeatedly on my talk page. I don't watch your talk page, I don't subscribe to your edits via RSS, I don't check page histories to see if you've edited them: the personality of your edits is a non-issue for me. It seems like it's midday in Australia now, which is where I believe you're located, so have a nice day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's 6:30 PM in Australia; I have no idea where you got midday from. I'm not "escalating" anything. if anything, you are escalating this yourself by still following my edits then making excuses to justify it. You explicitly targeted something I did on Bloom*Iz. I do not believe for a second you chose that article out of hundreds out of coincidence, nor that you did not look at what I did on the page when you targeted what I did on it. Of course, nobody can prove this, so that's why you are coming up with such a ridiculous lie. For the second and final time, I did not abuse rollback, so stop saying this. The next time you edit an article right after I have, when it's not something that was in the news, a recent album you would be interested in, or I personally do not believe you came across it naturally, I promise you I will take this hounding to ANI, whatever you bring up against me be damned. @Ad Orientem: Can you please give a stern "final" warning to Koavf here before I go to ANI? I've had enough. Thank you. Ss112 08:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the fourth time you have posted here where you've asked to not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks for that notice. Please don't ignore what I said and continue to follow me, or I will take this to ANI. By the way, can you please fix your edit on Template:Track listing? When you edited it the other week, you removed the headline being bold. If you want table captions to show up in bold before every other table, I don't know why you want the headline= param of Template:Track listing to not be bold and be in plain text. Thank you. Ss112 08:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the fifth time you have posted here when you've been asked to not. I can tell you are upset: I don't see anything constructive coming from you continuing with this thread. Please go about having a pleasant evening doing other things with your time--I hope that they include doing the mostly helpful things that you do to add to the encyclopedia here. If you have a request for a template edit, please post it on the the template or module's talk page. If you want me to personally respond, you can use {{ping}} I have no clue what you mean about table captions showing up in bold otherwise, as I have never stated a preference for that. This is an example of you escalating by trying to tacitly call me a hypocrite or somesuch. Lastly, please also stop abusing rollback--it concerns me that you fundamentally misunderstand this user right you have been given. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- And you are abusing your template editor privileges to make changes that have not been discussed; this is one of those times. Users have already posted about this at Template talk:Track listing#Headlines. I discovered you made the edit to the template to make headline= no longer be bold after they talked about it. You are trying to spam Wikipedia with your table captions now. You know table captions are ordinarily bold. If you didn't want them to be, you would probably have already made them not bold by abusing your template editor privilege by making undiscussed changes. The headline= param of Template:Trrack listing should not be different, so can you please fix your own edit? I don't see why I should have to go through requesting a change when you can just make it right now. Ss112 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the sixth time you have posted here when you have been told to not. Thank you for alerting me to the discussion there: I did not see it, as no one pinged me. As we discussed with Wikipedia:Rollback and your abuse of your user rights, we have different understandings of what these mean. Wikipedia:Template editor suggests that as a rough guide "Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" include "Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox, or slightly tweaking something's color." This seems like a totally fair instance of that and now that I have been alerted to that discussion, I can participate. Please also look up the definition of "spam": I find it genuinely morally concerning that you consider accessibility to the blind to be "spam". Your language here is increasingly inflammatory and inappropriate. I suggest that you do other things with your time. Please do not make unfounded allegations about me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't want me to reply, don't ping me. I will reply here if you continue pinging me, because that certainly indicates you want to talk to me. I was trying to say the number of edits on all these articles you've been making is "spam", not necessarily the fact you are adding table captions. Please don't try and get all moral on me like you're so righteous or a crusader for the visually impaired when you're really not. Just a reminder: do not continue to follow my edits or use them as a guide to edit articles right after me, or I will alert ANI about your Wikihounding. Me continuing to reply on your talk page when you've pinged me is not an example of this. Do not think you have a right to disregard warnings from an administrator or that anyone will believe lame excuses to get around them. Thanks, and good day. Ss112 09:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, You have now posted here seven times where you've been told to not. You fundamentally misunderstand what {{ping}} is and you have yourself used notifications precisely to tell someone to not post to your talk page. Please stop using escalating language and please drop this thread, as you seem very put out and I don't see anything constructive coming from this. Please also stop making bad faith assumptions about my ethical character, or if you do, don't post them. You've made your point repeatedly, so posting it here again would actually be spam. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't want me to reply, don't ping me. I will reply here if you continue pinging me, because that certainly indicates you want to talk to me. I was trying to say the number of edits on all these articles you've been making is "spam", not necessarily the fact you are adding table captions. Please don't try and get all moral on me like you're so righteous or a crusader for the visually impaired when you're really not. Just a reminder: do not continue to follow my edits or use them as a guide to edit articles right after me, or I will alert ANI about your Wikihounding. Me continuing to reply on your talk page when you've pinged me is not an example of this. Do not think you have a right to disregard warnings from an administrator or that anyone will believe lame excuses to get around them. Thanks, and good day. Ss112 09:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the sixth time you have posted here when you have been told to not. Thank you for alerting me to the discussion there: I did not see it, as no one pinged me. As we discussed with Wikipedia:Rollback and your abuse of your user rights, we have different understandings of what these mean. Wikipedia:Template editor suggests that as a rough guide "Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" include "Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox, or slightly tweaking something's color." This seems like a totally fair instance of that and now that I have been alerted to that discussion, I can participate. Please also look up the definition of "spam": I find it genuinely morally concerning that you consider accessibility to the blind to be "spam". Your language here is increasingly inflammatory and inappropriate. I suggest that you do other things with your time. Please do not make unfounded allegations about me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- And you are abusing your template editor privileges to make changes that have not been discussed; this is one of those times. Users have already posted about this at Template talk:Track listing#Headlines. I discovered you made the edit to the template to make headline= no longer be bold after they talked about it. You are trying to spam Wikipedia with your table captions now. You know table captions are ordinarily bold. If you didn't want them to be, you would probably have already made them not bold by abusing your template editor privilege by making undiscussed changes. The headline= param of Template:Trrack listing should not be different, so can you please fix your own edit? I don't see why I should have to go through requesting a change when you can just make it right now. Ss112 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the fifth time you have posted here when you've been asked to not. I can tell you are upset: I don't see anything constructive coming from you continuing with this thread. Please go about having a pleasant evening doing other things with your time--I hope that they include doing the mostly helpful things that you do to add to the encyclopedia here. If you have a request for a template edit, please post it on the the template or module's talk page. If you want me to personally respond, you can use {{ping}} I have no clue what you mean about table captions showing up in bold otherwise, as I have never stated a preference for that. This is an example of you escalating by trying to tacitly call me a hypocrite or somesuch. Lastly, please also stop abusing rollback--it concerns me that you fundamentally misunderstand this user right you have been given. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks for that notice. Please don't ignore what I said and continue to follow me, or I will take this to ANI. By the way, can you please fix your edit on Template:Track listing? When you edited it the other week, you removed the headline being bold. If you want table captions to show up in bold before every other table, I don't know why you want the headline= param of Template:Track listing to not be bold and be in plain text. Thank you. Ss112 08:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, This is the fourth time you have posted here where you've asked to not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's 6:30 PM in Australia; I have no idea where you got midday from. I'm not "escalating" anything. if anything, you are escalating this yourself by still following my edits then making excuses to justify it. You explicitly targeted something I did on Bloom*Iz. I do not believe for a second you chose that article out of hundreds out of coincidence, nor that you did not look at what I did on the page when you targeted what I did on it. Of course, nobody can prove this, so that's why you are coming up with such a ridiculous lie. For the second and final time, I did not abuse rollback, so stop saying this. The next time you edit an article right after I have, when it's not something that was in the news, a recent album you would be interested in, or I personally do not believe you came across it naturally, I promise you I will take this hounding to ANI, whatever you bring up against me be damned. @Ad Orientem: Can you please give a stern "final" warning to Koavf here before I go to ANI? I've had enough. Thank you. Ss112 08:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I did not abuse rollback; everyone who has rollback has used it for that purpose. Don't sidetrack the discussion. Are you seriously expecting me, or anyone, to believe that this is coincidence? This is the exact reason I did not want to have a pointless conversation with you to "work out differences". You are condescending in the extreme, and you are an experienced Wikipedia editor with two million edits making up incredible excuses no other user of this website would believe to excuse that you edited an article soon after me, when you were given a formal caution by an administrator to stop hounding me. @Ad Orientem: It looks like this is the excuse Koavf is going to resort to now to get around being told to stop following me: "it was in a category, and I decided to choose that article out of hundreds to edit, coincidentally right after you". Koavf, this is not something anyone is going to fall for. Grow up, and find better things to do on Wikipedia than hound and harass editors like myself. Ss112 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, I have no clue what you edit because I don't hound/stalk/follow you. Please don't abuse Rollback in the future. If you don't understand what the proper purposes are of rollback, I have listed them below:
- People use rollback for that purpose all the time, so in that case, every user should have their rollback rights revoked. Koavf, this is a seriously pathetic excuse even for you. Nobody, if I filed this at ANI, would believe you stumbled on an article I edited only earlier, out of hundreds listed at a category, especially after you were told by an administrator to leave me and my edits alone. Is this the excuse you're going to use now when you edit an article not long after I do and continue to target what I've done on that article? Final time I ask: Leave me and my edits alone, or I will take it to ANI. I am not levelling empty threats. If you do not stop following me to articles and targeting my edit on them right after I've edited them, I will ask admins to intervene further. This is straight-up Wikihounding. Find something better to do than stalk my contributions. Ss112 08:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ss112, As I wrote, it looked funny and is in Category:2020 albums. Please do not abuse Wikipedia:Rollback or else you will have those rights removed. I don't know that you want more eyes on your edits when you are abusing your privileges. I did not go about stalking your edits and I did not even know that you had ever edited The New Abnormal as it's not on my watch list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh my God. Who are you expecting to believe this? @Ad Orientem and Davey2010: Bloom*Iz isn't even listed at List of 2020 albums, and there is no way anyone is going to believe you decided to edit that article out of hundreds of articles in a category right after I did. You found it and edited it not long after I did, and you explicitly targeted what I did on the article. Please stop making up lame excuses. This is not something you stumbled onto by chance. Ss112 08:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Vanished Gardens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Roots music
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Answer
What are you even talking about? The headline was so unnecessary, because I never saw that the original track listing need that before. These albums are not much notable, so everything needs a source, what is hard to understand that? Many albums need this and many have the same thing. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, I've shown you sources for this several times: data tables need captions per MOS:TABLECAPTION. Track listings are sourced by the album itself: the album is the source of what is on the album. Per WP:AFFILIATE, we should avoid stores as sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- And when we needed a sales performance? When we needed a headline? I have never see a notable user used it before. And an album itself is not source. So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too? What kind of argument is that?--Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, I sincerely have no clue what you're saying. I have referred you to the relevant resources to explain this. Have you read them? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- You still did not answer my questions. These sources that you are referring to? Sure, but I have been always said that these things need reliable sources from another reliable site, for example, when I quoting someone with their criticism. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, Yes, and I am saying this is an example of WP:PRIMARY. If you want to know how many pages are in a book, the best place to look is not a bookseller's website but the book itself. There are times that a piece of media can serve as a source about itself. I can't answer your other questions because I do not understand them. Again, did you read the pages I referred you to earlier? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I not gonna argue with you anymore, since this is going nowhere for understanding, cause you can't even answer my questions, when they are understandable as much as it is. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. "And when we needed a sales performance?" I don't know what this means. "When we needed a headline?" I'm guessing you mean a table caption? We need them for all data tables. "I have never see a notable user used it before." I don't know what this means. "And an album itself is not source." Yes, it is. "So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too?" What? "What kind of argument is that?" I have no clue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, just let it be, there is nothing to say anymore. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, So I'll take that as a "no, I did not read these materials or try to understand them". Please don't make this site more hostile to the blind. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I read them. It's just there is no point to argue anymore. I don't need this conflict. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, So I'll take that as a "no, I did not read these materials or try to understand them". Please don't make this site more hostile to the blind. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, just let it be, there is nothing to say anymore. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. "And when we needed a sales performance?" I don't know what this means. "When we needed a headline?" I'm guessing you mean a table caption? We need them for all data tables. "I have never see a notable user used it before." I don't know what this means. "And an album itself is not source." Yes, it is. "So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too?" What? "What kind of argument is that?" I have no clue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I not gonna argue with you anymore, since this is going nowhere for understanding, cause you can't even answer my questions, when they are understandable as much as it is. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, Yes, and I am saying this is an example of WP:PRIMARY. If you want to know how many pages are in a book, the best place to look is not a bookseller's website but the book itself. There are times that a piece of media can serve as a source about itself. I can't answer your other questions because I do not understand them. Again, did you read the pages I referred you to earlier? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- You still did not answer my questions. These sources that you are referring to? Sure, but I have been always said that these things need reliable sources from another reliable site, for example, when I quoting someone with their criticism. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tobi999tomas, I sincerely have no clue what you're saying. I have referred you to the relevant resources to explain this. Have you read them? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- And when we needed a sales performance? When we needed a headline? I have never see a notable user used it before. And an album itself is not source. So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too? What kind of argument is that?--Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"See if this works"???
Sigh. Despite having just been called onto the carpet for improper use of the template editor user right, you recently made an edit to Infobox album, a template with 155,000 transclusions, without testing it in the sandbox first. Your edit summary was "See if this works". You introduced an undesirable line break, failed to limit the categorization to main space, and failed to account for the situation in which an infobox lacking a cover could, illogically, be placed in the "lacking alt text" category (see The 13th Warrior). Please use the sandbox and the testcases page, and Special:ExpandTemplates, to test edits to widely used templates. I have cleaned up after you this time, except for the no cover / no alt text logic, which I encourage you to experiment with in the template's sandbox. Feel free to ask for help on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, What line break? Alt text should be for every image in every namespace: why would you limit it to Main:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- The line break that I removed with this edit, and that you can see if you use Special:ExpandTemplates to test the previous version of the template. Tracking categories for infobox errors are almost always limited to main space, and the category's description, which you wrote, describes tracking being limited to mainspace. Template testcases pages and such clutter up maintenance categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Ah, I didn't see that, tho I did check other pages to see how it displayed. Thanks. Do you know of a way to include multiple namepaces and exclude some others? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, You edited your comment. What on Category:Album articles lacking alt text for covers says that it's only for the main namespace? It says that it "contains non-article pages", which seems like the exact opposite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Re namespace selection, see {{Namespace and pagename-detecting templates}}. As for the category description, see the plain text that you wrote:
Any article using {{Infobox album}} with a blank field for the alt text is classified here for clean up.
(emphasis added). It's your test, so set it up how you want, but please ensure that the category description matches the test's logic. - Logically, the infobox should check to see if there is a cover, and apply the "alt text" category only if the cover is populated. It doesn't make sense to track missing alt text if there is no cover image yet; you'll get a lot of noise in the category. You should be able to use ifempty or a similar test instead of a switch to make that test happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Agreed. Thanks again--very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Really? You continue to make edits to the template without testing them in the sandbox? Removing a logical test that we are in the process of discussing? Please SLOW DOWN. Again, the template editor right is not to be taken lightly or used with an itchy trigger finger; you were lucky to hold on to it after the latest scuffle that I was unfortunate enough to be dragged into at ANI. You applying what you want to a template, even as others are attempting to engage in discussion with you, is how you ended up at ANI. Please learn from that experience. WP is a consensus-based workplace, and you will have a better chance of getting what you want if you slow down and seek consensus through discussion.
- Every time you change this template, you introduce the possibility of breaking 155,000 articles, and you put those 155,000 articles in the job queue. Again, please make changes in the sandbox of widely transcluded templates, and test them prior to deployment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_album&diff=next&oldid=951433915 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that before I posted the above. Slowing down, engaging in discussion, and trying edits in the sandbox first would have prevented both of those edits from loading up the job queue and potentially breaking articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Yes, thank you again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that before I posted the above. Slowing down, engaging in discussion, and trying edits in the sandbox first would have prevented both of those edits from loading up the job queue and potentially breaking articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_album&diff=next&oldid=951433915 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Agreed. Thanks again--very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Re namespace selection, see {{Namespace and pagename-detecting templates}}. As for the category description, see the plain text that you wrote:
- The line break that I removed with this edit, and that you can see if you use Special:ExpandTemplates to test the previous version of the template. Tracking categories for infobox errors are almost always limited to main space, and the category's description, which you wrote, describes tracking being limited to mainspace. Template testcases pages and such clutter up maintenance categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Question
I see you're been adding the headline parameter in several articles such as this. While I don't mind that, but why you added "album title track listing"? I don't see any reason to add "track listing" since the section obviously called that. It's kinda pointless, it should just celled the album's title instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, A caption should explain what the table below it has in terms of its data. The best caption that I can come up with is "Album track listing", since that is the information that is displayed in the table. If you have better alternatives, I'm open to them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Almost every album-related articles have a section under the name of "Track listing", it's not hard to tell. I think it's better to only add "Album" instead of "Album track listing". For example this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Yes but the caption needs to stand on its own, irrespective of any L3 headers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but still don't agreed with it but I'm not gonna remove it or do anything about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, The caption explains what the table is about which in this case is the track listing for the album. Is there something I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's looks fine to me. I accepted of what you been doing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Thanks. I appreciate you writing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's looks fine to me. I accepted of what you been doing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, The caption explains what the table is about which in this case is the track listing for the album. Is there something I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but still don't agreed with it but I'm not gonna remove it or do anything about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Yes but the caption needs to stand on its own, irrespective of any L3 headers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Almost every album-related articles have a section under the name of "Track listing", it's not hard to tell. I think it's better to only add "Album" instead of "Album track listing". For example this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I actually wanted to ask about this, too, and though I read the above discussion, I'm still not quite understanding the need to put "[album name] track listing" above a listing that is for a single album with no ambiguous delineations. I feel it's a bit redundant, but that is perhaps just me. You're an incredibly experienced user, so I just want to understand. Before undoing your edit on the Say Nothing (album) article (which I apologize for and will not do again), I took a look at the track listing template and the advice given for the headline parameter doesn't seem to stipulate what you've done, so it might be confusing to other or less experienced editors (e.g., me). Is there any way to edit the template page to state something to this effect? I would greatly appreciate your insight/advice on this. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Miss Sarita, That's kind of you to say but I make mistakes and there's plenty that I don't know, so there is no problem at all with undoing what I've done: if you can do something better than I can, please go for it! All data tables need captions, it's not really up to us to pick and choose which tables we feel like the blind don't need captions for. If there were some kind of consensus otherwise, that would be a different story. If you feel like it's necessary to change the language at MOS:TABLECAPTION based on your understanding of accessibility standards, I would recommend starting an RfC. Until the community understanding of this changes, then I don't see any place for us deciding that some tables get captions and others don't. Thanks for the note on the Template:Track listing/doc: is it more clear now? Do you have any better way to ensure that others aren't confused or how to communicate the need for captions? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that we do not get to judge what gets a caption and what doesn't. No argument from me there...or anywhere really. I'm just the type of editor that gets a lot of her knowledge about tables by what is said in the guidelines within template articles, so I have this linear way of thinking things like, "Well, it didn't state that on the template page. So, why is this editor doing this?" Blah blah blah. LOL! I did look at MOS:TABLECAPTION that you cited when reverting my...revert? I found it helpful, and I really don't think it needs to be changed since that section talks so broadly and I'm only referring to track listing tables. Your edit on the template was wonderful and I think it will greatly help new editors in the future. I really appreciate you doing that. Thank you for your patience with me in explaining this particular process. :-) — Miss Sarita 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Miss Sarita, "Well, it didn't state that on the template page. So, why is this editor doing this?" is a very reasonable question. Thanks for your kind words and doing your due diligence--I seem to have failed to make the documentation clear and so if you were confused, surely someone else was as well. Have a pleasant day and I hope to bump into you soon. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that we do not get to judge what gets a caption and what doesn't. No argument from me there...or anywhere really. I'm just the type of editor that gets a lot of her knowledge about tables by what is said in the guidelines within template articles, so I have this linear way of thinking things like, "Well, it didn't state that on the template page. So, why is this editor doing this?" Blah blah blah. LOL! I did look at MOS:TABLECAPTION that you cited when reverting my...revert? I found it helpful, and I really don't think it needs to be changed since that section talks so broadly and I'm only referring to track listing tables. Your edit on the template was wonderful and I think it will greatly help new editors in the future. I really appreciate you doing that. Thank you for your patience with me in explaining this particular process. :-) — Miss Sarita 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Gus dies.png
Thanks for uploading File:Gus dies.png. 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) 17:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Even in His Youth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Even in His Youth 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/Even in His Youth 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. Whpq (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Icelandic volleyball players
A tag has been placed on Category:Icelandic volleyball players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza has been nominated for merging
Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza has been nominated for merging
Category:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pinocchio (soundtrack), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalogue number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Experimental music albums by Filipino artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Alphabetland
If you can add another paragraph of text, I will nominate the article for a DYK. --evrik (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Evrik, Very boss. I just did it. Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Add something about the making of the video. --evrik (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Alphabetland --evrik (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As Mandarax noted, Alt1 is way too long. I pared it down. If you want, propose other interesting hooks, please do. --evrik (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think you should read WP:DICK. Sorry I worked so hard to elevate this article in an expedited manner. --evrik (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
3 RR warning
Consider this a warning for your external link edits on Alphabetland. --evrik (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Evrik, Samesies. Please see WP:BRD and post to the talk page to collaborate. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've been working on DYKs for a while, this is the first time in memory someone has acted like this. Rarely I have seen this type of behavior. Hey if you really want to escalate this, you could revert me here as well. --evrik (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Evrik, I've never seen anyone insist on using citation templates on things that aren't citations before ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ See how to make an external link at WP:EL and see the template instructions. You are also inserting inaccuracies, as I pointed out already. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Category
Hey Justin, just a heads up... you've accidentally created Category:Al bums produced by Randall Dunn (with a space in "albums") instead of Category:Albums produced by Randall Dunn... this will need to be fixed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "P" should probably be capitalized in Category:Label SJ Eps as well... Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, Thanks for cleaning up after me! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ha ha, I haven't done any cleaning up yet, just pointing out the errors! Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, Pointing them out helps. As you can see, they are tagged to be moved. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ha ha, I haven't done any cleaning up yet, just pointing out the errors! Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, Thanks for cleaning up after me! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Question: MOS:TABLECAPTION
Where does it say at the manual of style above that a caption is required on a table? I've seen you mention, in a couple of edit summaries that they're required, and, yet, the linked MoS above does not state that. livelikemusic talk! 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Livelikemusic, MOS:TABLECAPTION: "A data table needs a caption". MOS:TABLES: "use captions to identify tables". Help:Table#Captions_and_summaries: "Explicit table captions are recommended for data tables as a best practice". Wikipedia:Table dos and don'ts: "Use short, self-explanatory captions and headers." See also the ongoing RfC which will close soon and has a very large consensus to require table captions on all data tables. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining; I will try and find the RfC to see what is being said. livelikemusic talk! 01:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Livelikemusic, Sorry, comrade--no reason for me to be obscure: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#rfc_F3F30C2. Let me know how else I can help. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining; I will try and find the RfC to see what is being said. livelikemusic talk! 01:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will take a look tomorrow, when it isn't almost 9:30pm and leave my two-thoughts. I can see both sides of the coin for this one. livelikemusic talk! 01:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Koavf doesn't even explain his/her edits in the Real Housewives articles. Captions can be added if its meant to be descriptive, but you don't need to add it if you are just stating the obvious, for example - the name of the article or the name of the section. It just looks repetitive and redundant. And why do you keep removing the alignments in the table?TheHotwiki (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, See above for all of the times that table captions are normative (see also WAI standards): captions are required, accessibility is not negotiable. Please show me an example of an alignment that I removed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Look at your edit history in those articles. You have removed the assigned alignments in more than five articles in less than 24 hours. And again use the edit summary.TheHotwiki (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Please show me a diff that includes me changing the alignment of any element. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Look at your edit history in those articles. You have removed the assigned alignments in more than five articles in less than 24 hours. And again use the edit summary.TheHotwiki (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, See above for all of the times that table captions are normative (see also WAI standards): captions are required, accessibility is not negotiable. Please show me an example of an alignment that I removed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Koavf doesn't even explain his/her edits in the Real Housewives articles. Captions can be added if its meant to be descriptive, but you don't need to add it if you are just stating the obvious, for example - the name of the article or the name of the section. It just looks repetitive and redundant. And why do you keep removing the alignments in the table?TheHotwiki (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will take a look tomorrow, when it isn't almost 9:30pm and leave my two-thoughts. I can see both sides of the coin for this one. livelikemusic talk! 01:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- [1][2][3] You removed the width size assigned for the table in those articles. Don't tell me you are an unaware of this, when you have done it in at least 7 articles in the last 24 hours. TheHotwiki (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, I was aware of that: I thought that you were saying that I changed the alignment of the text, which I did not do. The fact that you call cell widths "alignments" is confusing. Why are you including these unnecessary widths? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- And I'm asking you to stop removing them. They weren't added just for nothing. They serve a purpose. The cells look uneven/more crammed without the cell widths, thats why they were added in the first place.TheHotwiki (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Not sure what you're talking about: is there any guideline, policy, or Web best practice that you can point me to that recommends including unnecessary widths? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- And is there any guideline that convinced you to remove cell widths? I already stated an explanation why they were added in the first place. You removed them without an explanation.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, You answered my question with a question. Please answer my question. I don't have any internal guideline that convinced me to remove cell widths other than that this is a primary function of what browsers do when they render web pages and external best practices. Hence, I'm asking you, so please tell me if you know something that I don't. For more discussion on why defining widths is bad practice, see here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's been a editor who disagree [4], I guess some editors are not used to seeing the layout. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Yeah, several have. It's so g-darn exhausting to have this conversation over and over and over again but it really helps to have someone else who knows about best practices and is willing to help implement them (not to say that you and I are the only ones of course, just pointing out how encouraging it is to see this message). I remember the first time that I added alt text (over a decade ago!) and someone reverted it for being weird and because he thought it wasn't necessary. And that editor was a helpful and knowledgeable one who added a lot of constructive material to the encyclopedia. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's been a editor who disagree [4], I guess some editors are not used to seeing the layout. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, You answered my question with a question. Please answer my question. I don't have any internal guideline that convinced me to remove cell widths other than that this is a primary function of what browsers do when they render web pages and external best practices. Hence, I'm asking you, so please tell me if you know something that I don't. For more discussion on why defining widths is bad practice, see here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- And is there any guideline that convinced you to remove cell widths? I already stated an explanation why they were added in the first place. You removed them without an explanation.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Not sure what you're talking about: is there any guideline, policy, or Web best practice that you can point me to that recommends including unnecessary widths? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- And I'm asking you to stop removing them. They weren't added just for nothing. They serve a purpose. The cells look uneven/more crammed without the cell widths, thats why they were added in the first place.TheHotwiki (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, I was aware of that: I thought that you were saying that I changed the alignment of the text, which I did not do. The fact that you call cell widths "alignments" is confusing. Why are you including these unnecessary widths? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Megaforce Records video albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Megaforce Records video albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! TheHotwiki (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Why did you post this here? Feel free to answer my question above as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just a little reminder, as you didn't use the edit summary in a lot of your recent edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Please give me a diff of any edit I have made that has no edit summary. Please also answer my question above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Another example of your edits? This time without an edit summary. Have you seen your contributions page? [5] its right there. I wouldn't ask you in the first place if you are filling up the edit summary in your every single edit.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Please give me a diff of any edit I have made that has no edit summary. Please also answer my question above. Also, please stop escalating things with petty games. You know what you're doing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Another example of your edits? This time without an edit summary. Have you seen your contributions page? [5] its right there. I wouldn't ask you in the first place if you are filling up the edit summary in your every single edit.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hotwiki, Please give me a diff of any edit I have made that has no edit summary. Please also answer my question above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just a little reminder, as you didn't use the edit summary in a lot of your recent edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I began to add AOTY in several articles such as After Hours, The Life of Pablo, and Bandana. In the article Fetch the Bolt Cutters, I already see there are some disagreements between editors Jimmio78 and Sebastian James over this website been added in the rating template. Should this website be added in WP:ALBUMSOURCE alone with AnyDecentMusic? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, There was just a discussion on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_60#AOTY_added_to_template. Consensus can change of course but it seemed clear to me that the community found no fault with it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- There will be some editors who against it or don't know this website have been added in Template:Album ratings. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Inevitably. It's surprising to me that they are opposed to it when they see the field display at {{Album ratings}}. If you have instances where you think I can help, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think starting a RfC might help, we did it with the other aggregator website AnyDecentMusic? But that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, If you do, then please ping me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I might do it if there any disagreements with other editors. As of now, I don't see any editors removing the website in the articles that I mentioned. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey can you add AOTY in Template:Album ratings#Usage? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Sebastian James already did that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey can you add AOTY in Template:Album ratings#Usage? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- I might do it if there any disagreements with other editors. As of now, I don't see any editors removing the website in the articles that I mentioned. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, If you do, then please ping me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think starting a RfC might help, we did it with the other aggregator website AnyDecentMusic? But that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, Inevitably. It's surprising to me that they are opposed to it when they see the field display at {{Album ratings}}. If you have instances where you think I can help, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- There will be some editors who against it or don't know this website have been added in Template:Album ratings. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
...Fetch the Bolt Cutters, I already see there are some disagreements between editors Jimmio78 and Sebastian James over this website...
What? Do you want to discuss "We really don't need THREE aggregator scores; the AOTY score doesn't tell us anything new, and it is very rarely included here.
"? I think their reason is not valid because a) there is no rule that says two aggregators are the maximum limit. b) ADM is no different from AOTY, both are very rarely included on the page and neither of them tells us "anything new"... We only had a disagreement when Jimmio78 removed another rating while adding The Guardian, which I think has already been solved. Please do not make any assumptions. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 09:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Alphabetland
On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alphabetland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that punk pioneer band X's 2020 album Alphabetland, released on the 40th anniversary of their debut album Los Angeles, was the first featuring the original lineup in 35 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alphabetland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alphabetland), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- evrik, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
New wiki for The Smashing Pumpkins
Hey Koavf! I gather from various revision histories that you are a fan of The Smashing Pumpkins. I thought it might interest you to know we've started a dedicated fan wiki at https://spcodex.wiki. Billy Corgan himself has expressed interest in it. Come join us! There's still a ton of work to do, and frankly we could really use someone else who's super knowledgeable with MediaWiki :) Cheers and hope you are well, — MusikAnimal talk 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- MusikAnimal, Thanks for the invitation but I have 0 time (>0 interest tho!) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Your recent editing history at List of Parks and Recreation episodes 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. -- /Alex/21 22:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, samesies. Please don't remove accessibility from Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, please show me an actual policy that requires captions, especially since WP:DTT clearly states "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Also, interesting how you missed the "recommended as a best practice". -- /Alex/21 22:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, The MOS is a guideline. See the RfC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you miss the "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" part? It very clearly is not a guideline. Also, you mean the open, unclosed RFC that has no consensus? Let me know when you actually have something to support you. -- /Alex/21 22:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You apparently missed that the subpage of a subpage is a how-to tutorial. It is a child of a page that is a guideline. The RfC has 75%+ approval for language that explicitly mandates requiring all data tables to have captions--that seems like a consensus to me and it clearly supports what I'm saying. Also, WCAI Guidelines. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- How-to, yes. Guideline, no. It very clearly states that. Do you want me to repeat it again?
"It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"
. Nor is the RFC closed with a consensus, so that cannot be cited. Nor is this cite WCAI, it's Wikipedia with its own guideline and policies (of which DTT is not: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"), so that cannot be cited. I'm still waiting... -- /Alex/21 22:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)- Alex 21, I do not want you to repeat the same thing over and over again just like I don't want to keep on saying the same thing over and over again: it's a how-to that is a subpage of a guideline. I have told you this several times. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I will repeat it as many times as I need to, to show you that it is neither a guideline or policy. Do you know how I know that? "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". You're the one who added it and has reverted thrice, thus edit-warring over it, so you're the one that needs a clear policy, or at least guideline. You have neither. I am well within my rights to restore to the status quo while you gain an actual consensus, that is not based on the number of votes of an unclosed RFC. -- /Alex/21 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You keep on refuting claims that I never made. Please stop doing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- You based your reasoning on a not-guideline and an open-RFC. Two no-no's. -- /Alex/21 08:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You seem to be under the apprehension that guidelines (which the MOS accessibility page is one) is optional and that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from accessibility best practices. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Except that DTT isn't a guideline. Specifically says so. Here's the template that specifically says so, in case you haven't seen it:
This help page is a how-to guide.It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus.- Now, give me an actual policy, real guideline or consensus-closed RFC that supports that you're saying. -- /Alex/21 08:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Look a few pixels up on this page: MOS:TABLECAPTION: "A data table needs a caption". MOS:TABLES: "use captions to identify tables". Help:Table#Captions_and_summaries: "Explicit table captions are recommended for data tables as a best practice". Wikipedia:Table dos and don'ts: "Use short, self-explanatory captions and headers." I don't know why you keep on hounding me about this. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- TABLECAPTION, still not a guideline. TABLES, does not say they're required or demanded. Help:Table, still not a guideline. Do's and don'ts, still not a guideline. Sigh... You're not citing these on your talk page, you're citing them in edit summaries in actual articles where you're edit warring. I'm still waiting. -- /Alex/21 08:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Alex, I don't know if you were raised by wolves or if you're 11 years old or if you've just never had a conversation with another human being before but this is not how you're supposed to treat someone else. Don't talk to me this way. You are demanded something that I never said that I had over and over again. I gave you a guideline that explicitly says, "use captions to identify tables". I would think that is clear enough but because it doesn't say, "I hereby demand and decree that you must use captions to identify tables", then the magic words aren't spoken. I have shown you a very clear community consensus for data tables having captions. What is your endgame here? You're going to revert to remove it and then just wait three days until the RfC closes and revert yourself? What is your motive behind this rude and mammoth waste of time? Why do you want so badly for some little corner of the Internet to be just that much more hostile to the blind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nor is edit-warring. You should know that. You edit-warred over content that you have no solid backup for, it's as simple as that. You should know better than that; I'm not mad at you, just sorely disappointed. -- /Alex/21 09:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Several citations from across the documentation of the encyclopedia, a 3:1 consensus on the RfC on this very matter, and 20 year-old W3C accessibility guidelines are "no solid back up" for this table caption? You're writing nonsense. A data table needs a caption, so use captions to identify tables, as explicit table captions are recommended for data tables as a best practice. Use short, self-explanatory captions and headers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- No guidelines and no consensus-closed RFC. That's what I'm seeing. -- /Alex/21 10:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and also WP:NOVOTE. -- /Alex/21 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, ditto. -- /Alex/21 10:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. I've answered every question you've asked me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you have not. State an actual guideline or policy that supports your edit-warring. You have not done so. -- /Alex/21 11:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf,
I've answered every question you've asked me.
I can see that you have no further response to the discussion, as you cannot answer my question. That means that you're aware that if the content is restored and you revert again, then you've violated 3RR and EW, as you have no basis at all to revert. -- /Alex/21 11:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)- Alex 21, What is your endgame here? You're going to revert to remove it and then just wait three days until the RfC closes and revert yourself? What is your motive behind this rude and mammoth waste of time? Why do you want so badly for some little corner of the Internet to be just that much more hostile to the blind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll self-revert, yes, once the consensus of the RFC, whatever it may be, is implemented into an actual guideline. As it stands, it is not and has not. What's the difference between the caption and the header? They serve identical purposes. -- /Alex/21 11:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, To be clear: you are asking what the difference is between the table caption and an L3 header in the document? They do not serve the same purpose. To understand the difference, I would refer you to the HTML Living Standard. Headers provide structure to the outline of a document, which could be used (e.g.) for making search results in a search engine or creating anchors internally in a single document. Table captions serve to give an overview of the content of a table, which could be used (e.g.) for screen readers for the blind to alert them to complex code that will be read out loud to them. I have no idea why you think they serve an identical purpose: where are you getting this information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll self-revert, yes, once the consensus of the RFC, whatever it may be, is implemented into an actual guideline. As it stands, it is not and has not. What's the difference between the caption and the header? They serve identical purposes. -- /Alex/21 11:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, What is your endgame here? You're going to revert to remove it and then just wait three days until the RfC closes and revert yourself? What is your motive behind this rude and mammoth waste of time? Why do you want so badly for some little corner of the Internet to be just that much more hostile to the blind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf,
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you have not. State an actual guideline or policy that supports your edit-warring. You have not done so. -- /Alex/21 11:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. I've answered every question you've asked me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, ditto. -- /Alex/21 10:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and also WP:NOVOTE. -- /Alex/21 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, If you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- No guidelines and no consensus-closed RFC. That's what I'm seeing. -- /Alex/21 10:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Several citations from across the documentation of the encyclopedia, a 3:1 consensus on the RfC on this very matter, and 20 year-old W3C accessibility guidelines are "no solid back up" for this table caption? You're writing nonsense. A data table needs a caption, so use captions to identify tables, as explicit table captions are recommended for data tables as a best practice. Use short, self-explanatory captions and headers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nor is edit-warring. You should know that. You edit-warred over content that you have no solid backup for, it's as simple as that. You should know better than that; I'm not mad at you, just sorely disappointed. -- /Alex/21 09:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Alex, I don't know if you were raised by wolves or if you're 11 years old or if you've just never had a conversation with another human being before but this is not how you're supposed to treat someone else. Don't talk to me this way. You are demanded something that I never said that I had over and over again. I gave you a guideline that explicitly says, "use captions to identify tables". I would think that is clear enough but because it doesn't say, "I hereby demand and decree that you must use captions to identify tables", then the magic words aren't spoken. I have shown you a very clear community consensus for data tables having captions. What is your endgame here? You're going to revert to remove it and then just wait three days until the RfC closes and revert yourself? What is your motive behind this rude and mammoth waste of time? Why do you want so badly for some little corner of the Internet to be just that much more hostile to the blind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- TABLECAPTION, still not a guideline. TABLES, does not say they're required or demanded. Help:Table, still not a guideline. Do's and don'ts, still not a guideline. Sigh... You're not citing these on your talk page, you're citing them in edit summaries in actual articles where you're edit warring. I'm still waiting. -- /Alex/21 08:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Look a few pixels up on this page: MOS:TABLECAPTION: "A data table needs a caption". MOS:TABLES: "use captions to identify tables". Help:Table#Captions_and_summaries: "Explicit table captions are recommended for data tables as a best practice". Wikipedia:Table dos and don'ts: "Use short, self-explanatory captions and headers." I don't know why you keep on hounding me about this. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You seem to be under the apprehension that guidelines (which the MOS accessibility page is one) is optional and that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from accessibility best practices. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- You based your reasoning on a not-guideline and an open-RFC. Two no-no's. -- /Alex/21 08:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You keep on refuting claims that I never made. Please stop doing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I will repeat it as many times as I need to, to show you that it is neither a guideline or policy. Do you know how I know that? "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". You're the one who added it and has reverted thrice, thus edit-warring over it, so you're the one that needs a clear policy, or at least guideline. You have neither. I am well within my rights to restore to the status quo while you gain an actual consensus, that is not based on the number of votes of an unclosed RFC. -- /Alex/21 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, I do not want you to repeat the same thing over and over again just like I don't want to keep on saying the same thing over and over again: it's a how-to that is a subpage of a guideline. I have told you this several times. Please show me a citation for what I am allowed to cite on my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- How-to, yes. Guideline, no. It very clearly states that. Do you want me to repeat it again?
- Alex 21, You apparently missed that the subpage of a subpage is a how-to tutorial. It is a child of a page that is a guideline. The RfC has 75%+ approval for language that explicitly mandates requiring all data tables to have captions--that seems like a consensus to me and it clearly supports what I'm saying. Also, WCAI Guidelines. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you miss the "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" part? It very clearly is not a guideline. Also, you mean the open, unclosed RFC that has no consensus? Let me know when you actually have something to support you. -- /Alex/21 22:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, The MOS is a guideline. See the RfC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, please show me an actual policy that requires captions, especially since WP:DTT clearly states "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Also, interesting how you missed the "recommended as a best practice". -- /Alex/21 22:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, they basically serve the same purpose, in this exact case - a summary of the table. Thank you for confirming that; I can quote that for future reference. -- /Alex/21 11:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Feel free to quote me saying that they serve different functions, are not the same semantically, removing captions is hostile to the blind, and as I explicitly wrote "they do not serve the same purpose". Also, if you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've answered every question you've asked me. -- /Alex/21 11:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "where are you getting this information?" It's really straining credulity that you're interested in collaborating on writing an encyclopedia with these posts to my talk page instead of (e.g.) pulling dumb stunts and wasting everyone's time. I recommend you take some time to cool off and ask yourself if you're really doing anything constructive here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- You were saying "please answer the questions I asked" before you even said "where are you getting this information?". Thus, I've answered every question you've asked me. -- /Alex/21 11:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, And now I asked you another question and you didn't answer it. Please answer it if you want to continue posting here. Your petty game-playing is a nuisance at best if you actually have some kind of point or if you can somehow justify an "I'm not touching you"-style technicality but now you're just flagrantly lying in addition to wasting everyone's time. Quit your lies and hostility to the blind, please. You know what to do if you wish to post here on this topic, otherwise, don't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, you were just spamming the same message for no reason before, because you had no questions you'd actually asked me? Your petty game-playing is a nuisance at best if you actually have some kind of point. -- /Alex/21 13:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, I did have questions: they are the things with question marks at the end. If you are unwilling or unable to follow this simple thread, then I suggest that you bow out of it. Alternately, stop being so rude on my talk page and use this as a space to collaborate on an encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, For what it's worth, the RfC closed, requiring captions on data tables: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#RfC_on_table_captions. This is now part of the MOS guideline. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, hey, I forgot about this. So, it's still just a guideline/recommended suggestion, and not a must-do policy? -- /Alex/21 06:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "Now, give me an actual policy, real guideline or consensus-closed RFC that supports that you're saying."
Done Also, you seem to not understand what policies and guidelines are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "Now, give me an actual policy, real guideline or consensus-closed RFC that supports that you're saying."
- Oh, hey, I forgot about this. So, it's still just a guideline/recommended suggestion, and not a must-do policy? -- /Alex/21 06:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, you were just spamming the same message for no reason before, because you had no questions you'd actually asked me? Your petty game-playing is a nuisance at best if you actually have some kind of point. -- /Alex/21 13:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, And now I asked you another question and you didn't answer it. Please answer it if you want to continue posting here. Your petty game-playing is a nuisance at best if you actually have some kind of point or if you can somehow justify an "I'm not touching you"-style technicality but now you're just flagrantly lying in addition to wasting everyone's time. Quit your lies and hostility to the blind, please. You know what to do if you wish to post here on this topic, otherwise, don't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- You were saying "please answer the questions I asked" before you even said "where are you getting this information?". Thus, I've answered every question you've asked me. -- /Alex/21 11:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "where are you getting this information?" It's really straining credulity that you're interested in collaborating on writing an encyclopedia with these posts to my talk page instead of (e.g.) pulling dumb stunts and wasting everyone's time. I recommend you take some time to cool off and ask yourself if you're really doing anything constructive here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've answered every question you've asked me. -- /Alex/21 11:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Feel free to quote me saying that they serve different functions, are not the same semantically, removing captions is hostile to the blind, and as I explicitly wrote "they do not serve the same purpose". Also, if you want to post here, please answer the questions I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
about ecuador
i noticed my citated edit has been undone based on that the source didn't claim what the edit is for. but this is strange since the source explicitly state that?
Ecuador joined Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, Paraguay, and Peru in supporting Morocco’s Autonomy Plan. at any rate, i will be re editing it again just in case. if there is a mistake about it. please contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, Saying that they support the plan is not the same as saying that they cut ties with the SADR. This is even assuming the the source is reliable, which I find pretty suspect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- that doesn't make sense: the polisario front aka SADR stands for self referendum as a country only, while morocco autonomy plan is the opposite of that. how can they support both ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Killua0: Don't ask me, ask Ecuador. Please see WP:OR: we cannot come up with theories or syntheses of facts. The source you cite does not say that they suspended relations and they certainly don't say that they did so on a particular date. That is also assuming that it is a reliable source, which seems questionable to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- this is ridiculous, don't ask you? you are the one that implying that they can. which contradict international law. i would recommend you re-read WP:OR properly this time and add international law in recognition while you are it.
- you are arguing international law with pleading fallacies, if they didn't say that they suspended it, doesn't matter what they say otherwise. unless you have a proof that the source is unauthentic. refrain from questioning with your opinion and war editing as possible. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, If Morocco can contradict international law, why can't Ecuador? The logical fallacy is with you saying that something happened when it didn't. If they didn't say that they suspended it, then we can't say that they suspended it: that seems like a very simple and straightforwad rule. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- if morocco can contradict international law. what contradiction? what are you even saying? so the source didn't happen now apparently. please learn international law, they don't have to say it explicitly to know it's been withdrawn. if a particular government has been ousted, that government recognition is no longer counted. did they say it? no. but did they undo their recognition? yes. at this rate. you are just edit warring based on your opinion. may consider reporting this to a mod
- in4 you recount libya as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0 First off, please indent your comments and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). You argued, "Ecuador can't do [x] because it's opposed to international law". Morocco invaded and occupied someone else's land, which is against international law: that's why this article exists. Please learn international law. Feel free to report this conversation to a "mod"; I would love to see what one of them says. No clue why you are bringing up Libya. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- i think you should learn history first and stop mixing stuff up. Ecuador recognition statue within UN rules have nothing to do with morocco annexation stuff. this articles exists to show which state recognize or not its sovereignty. not whether its occupation is a legitimate annexation or an invasion (nice opinion, btw), there are other articles for that. once again, please refrain from posting your opinion.
- i bring libya to demonstrate how ridiculous your opinion is, and if you keep war editting, you can bet i'm reporting this whole convo and the source questioning to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0 You seem to be under the misapprehension that writing nonsense like, "learn history" is somehow useful. It's not. If you have a specific claim to make, then make it. If it requires a citation, provide it. If you have irrelevant tangents, idle threats, or pet theories, please keep to yourself. Please also indent your comments and sign them. Additionally, the "opinion" of the International Court of Justice is that Morroco has no valid claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara and the "opinion" of the United Nations General Assembly is that it is occupied territory. It's not my nice opinion: please learn international law. I eagerly anticipate your report of this conversation to a "mod". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- funny how correcting someone who categorize disputed territories as invasions with no citations is nonsense, and then proceed to call out others to cite themselves (according to UN, it's not even an occupation, let alone an invasion [1]). those are facts, not claims. yours however is. but whatever makes you sleep on night. pursuing your opinion entitles me to call a mod to stop your edit warring. but nice try calling them pet theories, or idle threats.
- >says ecuador recognition of morocco autonomy plan does not equate their withdrawn of recognition to SADR referendum if they don't explicily say it despite the clear contradiction in UN laws
- >tells others to learn UN law.
- you ok, mate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs)
- Killua0 Silly me for assuming you had done the mildest due diligence since you were editing on this exact topic. I made the evidently foolish assumption that you had read Advisory opinion on Western Sahara and the ICJ's page on the topic or Political status of Western Sahara and seen its citation to Point 7, Res. 34/37 -Question of Western Sahara- 34th General assembly UN, 21-11-1979. Now that you are up to speed, you can see how it's not just my "nice" opinion but a fact. Maybe you are not very accustomed to logic but nothing in the source you provided proved that the UN doesn't recognize Western Sahara as occupied and actually explicitly cites the Secretary General saying that it is occupied!. Your "idle threat" to "call a mod" is pretty funny stuff. I was "okay" until you started polluting my talk page with nonsense. Please indent your comments and sign them in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- you sure like to assume a lot, and assume assumptions as well. the advisory opinion of ICOJ is from 1975. the current rule by the UN is that it's not an occupation. get on with the times, this is 2020, not 1975. in case you didn't know [2] U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regrets a “misunderstanding” over his use of the word “occupation” to describe Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara or what you call, an invasion. so no, it's still an asinine opinion. not a fact. polluting. geez, talk about passive aggression, clearly some logical steps are being deliberately ignored. anyways, if you don't stop blocking my edit when you can't prove the source is not authentic, i may as well report this and be done with it. Killua0 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, You are repeating the same mistake over and over again. I have tried to explain it to you over and over again but it seems like you're not getting it: your weird inferences for what you think someone said or meant are irrelevant. A claim like, " the current rule by the UN is that it's not an occupation" is not supported by fact. Please show me any source that supports this. Please show me any rulings by the ICJ that overturned the Advisory opinion on Western Sahara. Please also indent your comments in the future. Thanks for finally singing them. And if you thought I was being "passive-aggressive", then it seems like I wasn't aggressive enough. I try to not escalate things but I also do not roll over when someone posts nonsensical, bad faith garbage. As I have stated to you multiple times, you need to understand WP:V and WP:OR and stop making up your interpretations of what you think sources probably implicitly must entail when you edit the encyclopedia. Ask any "mod" and he'll agree. Feel free to post here if you are going to deescalate your disinformation campaign and stop posting rude, bad faith nonsense like "learn history". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- rich of you to speak about misinterpretation of what others meant, when you are twisting a 1975 court opinion of no-sovereignty into an invasion. dude, stop pretending of being blind to those statements: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regrets a “misunderstanding” over his use of the word “occupation” to describe Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara - “The position of the United Nations has not changed,” Dujarric said. “He has not and will not take sides on the issue of Western Sahara.” [3] the UN made itself clear. in4 misinterpreted ICJ 1975 > UN 2016. this is the last time i'm re quoting this, if you can't get it. then it's your problem, not mine.
- let me, a gentlemen respond profoundly to your garbage accusation, those sources are worth infinitely more than some if X did A why can't B do X even if B and X are not the same with an anti burden of proof arguing. understanding them is simple, what you lack is comprehension. of WP:OR and international law before continuing. dude, direct quotes =/= interpetations. and that's rich, coming from mr: no sovereignty = invasion = not interpertational
- keep dreaming if you think a mod will agree that your conspiracy theory that ecuador is supporting both sides simultanously while contradicting UN law and themselves. but hy, anyone who says otherwise is a misinforming campaingner, amrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, STOP YOUR LIES Use Ctrl+F and see where the word "invasion" appears here: only you have used that word. I said "occupation" which is supported by the UNGA citation that I gave. If you want a citation for where I wrote "invaded", just ask for one. You keep on making up things that you think are implicitly in a source and then bandying them about as fact. STOP. If “The position of the United Nations has not changed,” and the UN declared it an occupation, then logically that must mean... what exactly? Remember how in your last post you said, "Hey, that was 1975, this is 2020, get with the times" and then in your next post say, "Their position hasn't changed"? Just like how you wrote "The UN never said 'occupied'" while using a source where the Secretary-General said "occupied"? It's like this is some kind of prank or performance art. Can't wait for your idle threat "find a mod" to come to fruition. Until then, please stop wasting my time on this topic and stop lying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- lying? so saying morocco invaded is not the same as morocco occupition being an invasion? what a big tomato, tomatoe meme. only me. clearly someoe doesn't know what nouning is. it means it's an annexation, just as simple as that.
- nice try in quoting without context, that was UN, not me: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regrets a “misunderstanding” over his use of the word “occupation” to describe Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara where he aplogiszed in using the word occuputation as misunderstanding and personal reaction (sounds similar?) to UN stat He has not and will not take sides on the issue of Western Sahara beofre mocking any idea of placing misinterpreted ICJ from 75 above current UN in4 misinterpreted ICJ 1975 > UN 2016. your rabbit hole doesn't go bothways, sorry. and trust me, i'm just waiting for you to cross the redline before informing the mods Killua0 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, Your post makes no sense. Please stop it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, STOP YOUR LIES Use Ctrl+F and see where the word "invasion" appears here: only you have used that word. I said "occupation" which is supported by the UNGA citation that I gave. If you want a citation for where I wrote "invaded", just ask for one. You keep on making up things that you think are implicitly in a source and then bandying them about as fact. STOP. If “The position of the United Nations has not changed,” and the UN declared it an occupation, then logically that must mean... what exactly? Remember how in your last post you said, "Hey, that was 1975, this is 2020, get with the times" and then in your next post say, "Their position hasn't changed"? Just like how you wrote "The UN never said 'occupied'" while using a source where the Secretary-General said "occupied"? It's like this is some kind of prank or performance art. Can't wait for your idle threat "find a mod" to come to fruition. Until then, please stop wasting my time on this topic and stop lying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, You are repeating the same mistake over and over again. I have tried to explain it to you over and over again but it seems like you're not getting it: your weird inferences for what you think someone said or meant are irrelevant. A claim like, " the current rule by the UN is that it's not an occupation" is not supported by fact. Please show me any source that supports this. Please show me any rulings by the ICJ that overturned the Advisory opinion on Western Sahara. Please also indent your comments in the future. Thanks for finally singing them. And if you thought I was being "passive-aggressive", then it seems like I wasn't aggressive enough. I try to not escalate things but I also do not roll over when someone posts nonsensical, bad faith garbage. As I have stated to you multiple times, you need to understand WP:V and WP:OR and stop making up your interpretations of what you think sources probably implicitly must entail when you edit the encyclopedia. Ask any "mod" and he'll agree. Feel free to post here if you are going to deescalate your disinformation campaign and stop posting rude, bad faith nonsense like "learn history". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- you sure like to assume a lot, and assume assumptions as well. the advisory opinion of ICOJ is from 1975. the current rule by the UN is that it's not an occupation. get on with the times, this is 2020, not 1975. in case you didn't know [2] U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regrets a “misunderstanding” over his use of the word “occupation” to describe Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara or what you call, an invasion. so no, it's still an asinine opinion. not a fact. polluting. geez, talk about passive aggression, clearly some logical steps are being deliberately ignored. anyways, if you don't stop blocking my edit when you can't prove the source is not authentic, i may as well report this and be done with it. Killua0 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0 Silly me for assuming you had done the mildest due diligence since you were editing on this exact topic. I made the evidently foolish assumption that you had read Advisory opinion on Western Sahara and the ICJ's page on the topic or Political status of Western Sahara and seen its citation to Point 7, Res. 34/37 -Question of Western Sahara- 34th General assembly UN, 21-11-1979. Now that you are up to speed, you can see how it's not just my "nice" opinion but a fact. Maybe you are not very accustomed to logic but nothing in the source you provided proved that the UN doesn't recognize Western Sahara as occupied and actually explicitly cites the Secretary General saying that it is occupied!. Your "idle threat" to "call a mod" is pretty funny stuff. I was "okay" until you started polluting my talk page with nonsense. Please indent your comments and sign them in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0 You seem to be under the misapprehension that writing nonsense like, "learn history" is somehow useful. It's not. If you have a specific claim to make, then make it. If it requires a citation, provide it. If you have irrelevant tangents, idle threats, or pet theories, please keep to yourself. Please also indent your comments and sign them. Additionally, the "opinion" of the International Court of Justice is that Morroco has no valid claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara and the "opinion" of the United Nations General Assembly is that it is occupied territory. It's not my nice opinion: please learn international law. I eagerly anticipate your report of this conversation to a "mod". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0 First off, please indent your comments and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). You argued, "Ecuador can't do [x] because it's opposed to international law". Morocco invaded and occupied someone else's land, which is against international law: that's why this article exists. Please learn international law. Feel free to report this conversation to a "mod"; I would love to see what one of them says. No clue why you are bringing up Libya. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Killua0, If Morocco can contradict international law, why can't Ecuador? The logical fallacy is with you saying that something happened when it didn't. If they didn't say that they suspended it, then we can't say that they suspended it: that seems like a very simple and straightforwad rule. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Killua0: Don't ask me, ask Ecuador. Please see WP:OR: we cannot come up with theories or syntheses of facts. The source you cite does not say that they suspended relations and they certainly don't say that they did so on a particular date. That is also assuming that it is a reliable source, which seems questionable to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- that doesn't make sense: the polisario front aka SADR stands for self referendum as a country only, while morocco autonomy plan is the opposite of that. how can they support both ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killua0 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Your note
Thanks for proving that even the minimal effort I was still spending trying to contribute here is not nearly worth the trouble. Losing my last reason to care makes my life easier. Koumz (talk)
- @Koumz: What? Why are you responding here in addition to the thread on your talk page? This is all very confusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dancers from Alaska
A tag has been placed on Category:Dancers from Alaska 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! 01:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles with Wikilivres links
A tag has been placed on Category:Articles with Wikilivres links 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! 01:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
ANI notification
Hi Koavf,
I'm not sure how to deal with the WP:AIV report in any other way than creating WP:ANI#Persistent edit warring by Koavf.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
|
...and than ending it with a beer. Thank you very much for the patient, thought-out discussion, and sorry for having contributed to your frustration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
- ToBeFree The only thing that offends me is the alcohol. Thanks for the gesture of good faith and for trying to make the encyclopedia better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry again, Koavf. I don't drink any alcohol myself! It's a nonalcoholic gesture. I just usually don't label it as such, since most recipients do not share my objection to alcohol. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, Now I'm making you feel bad! Yeesh. It was all in good fun. Yes, it's just an
O'Doul'sBevo in a gesture of good faith and kindness. Thanks, TBF. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, Now I'm making you feel bad! Yeesh. It was all in good fun. Yes, it's just an
- Sorry again, Koavf. I don't drink any alcohol myself! It's a nonalcoholic gesture. I just usually don't label it as such, since most recipients do not share my objection to alcohol. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Central Macedonia is not part of (Northern) Macedonia, the country. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- 1234qwer1234qwer4, Thanks. I'll take a look and see if I had similar mistaken edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Impact of Covid
Should there not be a separate category for Music released during the Covid-19 pandemdic? The category "impact of covid-19" doesn't make sense for the song "Murder Most Foul". The song's release wasn't necessarily impacted by Covid, it was just released during COVID. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Lil-unique1, Well, it seems pretty clear to me that the song was released due to the pandemic, i.e. it would not have been released had things been normal. I think that sources in the article support that assertion. I'm not sure what your question means. Can you reword it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to the article, it was released to fans as a "gift to fans for their support and loyalty over the years". There isn't necessarily anything in the article to say the reason Dylan released the song was because of coronavirus. If that's in the sources then it needs to be better mentioned in the article, otherwise its not a song that was impacted by CV-19. All I can see is a brief reference to CV-19 where a critic has compared it to being about CV-19 as well as JFK's assassination. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Lil-unique1, Good points. Thanks for helping me make this article better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to the article, it was released to fans as a "gift to fans for their support and loyalty over the years". There isn't necessarily anything in the article to say the reason Dylan released the song was because of coronavirus. If that's in the sources then it needs to be better mentioned in the article, otherwise its not a song that was impacted by CV-19. All I can see is a brief reference to CV-19 where a critic has compared it to being about CV-19 as well as JFK's assassination. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Cook Islands
Please see my comments re Category:Cook Islands farmers etc. Hugo999 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
High state honors
Hi, Justin, hope you're doing well. As you know, University Library has been closed since late-ish March, so everyone has been working from home. It will be 6/1 at the earliest before we reopen in some capacity.
I have a question for you: what does Wikipedia policy say about how to weigh high state honors? As in Sagamore of the Wabash-type stuff? I did a casual search, but nothing jumped out. Thanks, and take care. Caro7200 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Sorry if I'm too dense but I'm not clear on what you mean by "weighing" state honors. When it comes to issues related to awards, etc. the germane guidelines that come to my mind are MOS:HONORIFIC and Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. As far as I'm aware, winning Sagamore of the Wabash or being named a Nebraska Admiral are no different in principle than winning a Nobel or Pulitzer. Sorry if I'm just not getting it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, that helps. Mostly just curious in the general sense, but also wondered if having such a state honor would help notability in borderline new articles/afds. Not working on anything, just some social distancing ponderin'... Caro7200 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Hello, I'm AnimaniacsFanatic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Greatest Hits '93–'03 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. AnimaniacsFanatic (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- AnimaniacsFanatic, Please see WP:V. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry! I did not notice that this was intended to be a constructive edit, as I viewed it as removal of necessary content. Apologies for the confusion! Carry on. :) AnimaniacsFanatic (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- AnimaniacsFanatic, No worries! If anything, this project could use someone being a little too vigilant. Let me know how we can collaborate here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry! I did not notice that this was intended to be a constructive edit, as I viewed it as removal of necessary content. Apologies for the confusion! Carry on. :) AnimaniacsFanatic (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The In Sound from Way Out! (Beastie Boys album)
Did you mean to propose moving this to The In Sound from Way Out!? - Station1 (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Station1, I certainly did. Thanks for decoding my nonsense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
"Obamagate" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Obamagate. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#Obamagate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Albums produced by Andrew Watt (musician) has been nominated for renaming
Category:Albums produced by Andrew Watt (musician) has been nominated for 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. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Album ratings table
Hi Justin... just as an aside from your discussion about the use of Spill magazine on Alphabetland (I reckon it's OK, but Sergecross73 usually does a more thorough examination of these things), I noticed you've added some of the reviews as fractions (7⁄10 rather than 7/10) and the aggregate scores just as a score, not out of 100. It's nothing that I'm going to get too fussed about, but it's different from how these scores are presented in other articles, and I wondered how the fractions would meet MOS:ACCESSIBILITY requirements regarding their size. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, I can't speak to how the fractions are displayed but I'm using {{frac}} for semantic reasons. I don't have any reason for not using "out of 100"--seems like it could be better to use that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Do you have any suggestions on how I can ensure that fractions are semantically marked up as such and also accessible? Thanks for writing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, not really - I just wondered why you were using a different format from other ratings tables. Reminds me I should add some prose from the Rolling Stone review of Wild Gift to its article... I have that. Richard3120 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Quaker schools in Kansas
A tag has been placed on Category:Quaker schools in Kansas 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! 19:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Romance languages
Template:Romance languages has been nominated for merging with Template:Italic languages. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PK2 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Sloan edits
Can you elaborate on your decision to remove the statistics from Jerry Sloan? Those stats are certainly verifiable from any number of sources (E.g.,coaching stats, playing stats). Zagalejo^^^ 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Zagalejo, Sorry if it wasn't clear but WP:V requires sources for information on Wikipedia. That section had no sources, so I removed it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know about WP:V. I've been on Wikipedia almost as long as you have. Was this material "likely to be challenged"? Did it need to be removed immediately? I'm going to restore the sections, with some footnotes. If there was a specific stat you were doubting, we can talk about that, but it sounds like you didn't attempt to research the content at all. Zagalejo^^^ 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Zagalejo, No and yes. No, I didn't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Zagalejo, Thanks for working with me to make this a better article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. Zagalejo^^^ 20:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Everything in those stats tables can be supported by something in basketball-reference, although in certain cases, you will have to click on a link inside the given reference. For example, you wouldn't know that the 1979-80 Bulls were 4th in their division without clicking the 1979-80 "CHI" link in the coaching stats page. But I think it would be overkill to add a footnote for each cell in the "Finish" column. The main coaching stats page seems like a nice "container" for the relevant content.
- I shouldn't have gotten snippy with you, so I apologize for that. There were indeed a few errors in the tables (although such errors could have been present even with footnotes). Zagalejo^^^ 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Zagalejo, Agreed on reference overload, hence I moved them to the table caption: it just sources the entire table. No worries on your tone--you're good with me. Glad that you fixed the errors--looks like the system is working! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know about WP:V. I've been on Wikipedia almost as long as you have. Was this material "likely to be challenged"? Did it need to be removed immediately? I'm going to restore the sections, with some footnotes. If there was a specific stat you were doubting, we can talk about that, but it sounds like you didn't attempt to research the content at all. Zagalejo^^^ 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thanks for the help dealing with the LTA! Does Wikispecies have edit filters or a spambot? Randompointofview (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
- @Randompointofview: Strawberries are delicious. Thanks. There are in fact abuse filters at species:. On any project, go to Special:AbuseFilter and you should be able to see at least some outward-facing info on the filters. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation of battles of the Western Sahara War
Hello, Could you move back Battle of Hausa to Battle of Hausa (1989)? There was some other battles near Hawza, see fr:Bataille de Haouza. Thanks--Le Petit Chat (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Le Petit Chat, I'm willing to do it but I think the direction of causality should be the other way around: why have a disambiguation just awaiting the day if/when someone writes an article with the same name? I'm sure that there is someone else named Jennifer Lawrence and maybe someday we'll have an article on that one, too--should we move the current one to "Jennifer Lawrence (actress)" in anticipation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- However, the other people named Jennifer Lawrence aren't as famous as her while the battles of Hawza have been equally important.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Le Petit Chat, All signs point to that not being true as we have an article for the one in 1989 and not the others. What are you basing this claim on? This is exactly my point: establish that the others are notable and then move the article; don't move it anticipating that the others are notable or worth creating someday. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's why I gave you the link to the French disambiguation page : both pages should exist. Today I created the stub Battle of Guelta Zemmur (October 1981) which was a battle far more important than Battle of Guelta Zemmur (1989) since the former pushed the United States to massively support the Moroccan armed forces.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Le Petit Chat, And that dismabiguation page has two redlinks and two bluelinks. In English, we have one of those two bluelinks but the other one (fr:Bataille de Haouza (1984)) is a few sentences long and has several unsourced claims in it. If you can make the English equivalent for the 1984 event, I'll move the 1989 one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's why I gave you the link to the French disambiguation page : both pages should exist. Today I created the stub Battle of Guelta Zemmur (October 1981) which was a battle far more important than Battle of Guelta Zemmur (1989) since the former pushed the United States to massively support the Moroccan armed forces.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Le Petit Chat, All signs point to that not being true as we have an article for the one in 1989 and not the others. What are you basing this claim on? This is exactly my point: establish that the others are notable and then move the article; don't move it anticipating that the others are notable or worth creating someday. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- However, the other people named Jennifer Lawrence aren't as famous as her while the battles of Hawza have been equally important.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category talk:Assyrian tribes
A tag has been placed on Category talk:Assyrian tribes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This page serves no purpose as there is a page title "List of Assyrian tribes" that contains the same info. The "List of Assyrian tribes" page is being planned to be moved to "Assyrian tribes" but this Category page is blocking that move. In summary, deleting this category page and moving "List of Assyrian tribes" to "Assyrian tribes" would clean things up.
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. Assyriandude (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Question: Is this a reasonable search term as a redirect? I'm dubious, given the title-stacking and odd spacing/punctuation. I'm considering taking this to RfD, but I wanted to get your view first. Maybe move it to a cleaned-up version of the title? Thanks. --Finngall talk 20:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Finngall, It is not. I was initially going to move it without creating a redirect because it's so implausible before I realized that it was just copied and pasted. Agreed that it should be deleted. If you nominate it, ping me. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, creator was trying to post a whitewashed version of the article after his attempts to remove critical but well-sourced info from the main article were reverted. See my talk page for further discussion with them on the matter. RfD discussion has been created at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26. Thanks again. --Finngall talk 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
why?
Please don't make edits like this. Dummy edits can be useful if you forget an edit summary of another, meaningful edit but this served no purpose. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- why are they pointless, Im using the Autoed tool?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- besides if you have an issue with the tool post here Wikipedia_talk:AutoEd, should you post with this issue again on my talk page instead of proper talk page Ill request the advice of an administrator , thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ozzie10aaaa, You made the edit. You are responsible for how you use these tools. You made an edit that changed nothing but some whitespace and not even in a helpful way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- answered at Autoed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ozzie10aaaa, You made the edit. You are responsible for how you use these tools. You made an edit that changed nothing but some whitespace and not even in a helpful way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
ref
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Nick Monson
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Nick Monson 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.
hey
may i edit your user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesternino (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cesternino, Anyone can. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
George Floyd hat removal
Hey, just curious what you meant by your edit comment when you removed the hat linking to Killing of George Floyd from George Floyd (American football) [6] The removal seems lopsided since Killing of George Floyd links to the football player, but not vice versa.
As an interesting sidenote, your user boxes say you are a Friend. I was raised as a Conservative Friend. Although I don't identify as such anymore, every once in a while I still attend meeting. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Elephanthunter, Brother Elephant, thanks for writing. What I meant--sorry for not being clear--is explained at WP:NAMB. If the title is in the form "[Name] (Disambiguator)", then that "(Disambiguator)" part should make clear what we are about and it should be obvious to the reader. At least that's my understanding. Am I on the wrong track? It's funny you should mention Friends, as it was literally just an hour ago that I was invited to an unprogrammed Fourth Day service--it's been awhile since I've gone to meeting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buzz Osborne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalogue number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
A help desk question and Wikidata
Someone asked a very complicated question about Wikidata on the Help Desk that didn't get an answer. I saw in an article history you know at least something about Wikidata. Could you go here and see if you can answer the question or find someone who can? Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee, Hm. A little swamped now. Did the person post to WP:VPT? That usually solves problems quickly in my experience. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I usually think of that, but I didn't in this case. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
- @Vchimpanzee: Hit me up again if you don't get an answer in awhile. Wish I had more than that. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I usually think of that, but I didn't in this case. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
Wikidata short descriptions
I don't know if you saw the discussion about Wikidata infoboxes, but they are pretty bad because anyone can edit them and there's no way to make them easily conform to the article text. I recently saw a wikidata short description that misrepresented a political organisation. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, I have seen discussion like this, yes but I'm not sure what the take-away is here. Is there something that I should be doing differently? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Avoid them? See [7] with the edit summary "Adding local short description: "Claim that the Genesis creation narrative has validity as science", overriding Wikidata description "branch of creationism claiming to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove/reexplain the scientific facts/theories/paradigms about geology, cosmology, biology, archeology, history, and linguistic" - besides the fact that the Wikidata short description is ridiculously long, it's clumsy. Or use them only when clearly short and accurate? Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, Once a Wikidata description has been made a short description here, it won't dynamically change with edits at Wikidata. I still don't see how this relates to "anyone can edit them". This is also true of Wikipedia and anyone who has an account here has an account there. You can see every edit to a Wikidata item that is connected to every article you watch here on this watchlist. If an individual description is bad, it should be changed but I'm still not clear on what your point is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't either. I do know that they don't dynamically change. Sorry to have bothered you. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, It's never a problem to give me your feedback, Doug. I'm happy to hear from another person trying to make an encyclopedia with me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's very kind. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, It's never a problem to give me your feedback, Doug. I'm happy to hear from another person trying to make an encyclopedia with me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't either. I do know that they don't dynamically change. Sorry to have bothered you. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, Once a Wikidata description has been made a short description here, it won't dynamically change with edits at Wikidata. I still don't see how this relates to "anyone can edit them". This is also true of Wikipedia and anyone who has an account here has an account there. You can see every edit to a Wikidata item that is connected to every article you watch here on this watchlist. If an individual description is bad, it should be changed but I'm still not clear on what your point is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Avoid them? See [7] with the edit summary "Adding local short description: "Claim that the Genesis creation narrative has validity as science", overriding Wikidata description "branch of creationism claiming to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove/reexplain the scientific facts/theories/paradigms about geology, cosmology, biology, archeology, history, and linguistic" - besides the fact that the Wikidata short description is ridiculously long, it's clumsy. Or use them only when clearly short and accurate? Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
November 18 – external links
Hello. To answer your question, I always use Template:cite because it is neater and I prefer markup to a simple url and label. I realise it isn't necessary in EL, but as long as you don't include an accessdate it makes little or no difference. It imparts the same information. I checked the EL page and if you look at WP:ELCITE it says editors who use citation templates in the EL section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link. I'm satisfied that the description is appropriate and it's a case of preference between two options that produce the same result. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- No Great Shaker, I guess. I just don't see the incentive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Starter kit for smaller wikis
Hello, and greetings! As part of a Starter kit project for smaller wikis, there is a work-in-progress guide around Templates & Modules here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Starter_kit/Templates_and_Modules.
I am reaching out to you with a few questions as I recently learned from a colleague you are an expert in this area :-)
- I would love to know your suggestions on the Templates currently on the list, which should not be there, and those that are not there and should be there.
- Is there anything like a note or reminder related to these templates that you would like to add in the "Template description" column?
- What do you think about the overall document? Is it making sense from a small wiki contributor perspective?
Looking forward to your input! Srishti (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- SSethi (WMF), How kind. Not sure that I'm an expert but I'm happy to give my feedback. I think that the suite of {{agree}}/{{disagree}}-type templates should be basic, as is {{done}} and similar templates. Things that provide basic infrastructure like {{!}} or {{-}} as well. One of the biggies for me is {{Delete}} as if I know that exists on all wikis, I can use it on small ones where there is spam. If I have to localize "delete" or that wiki doesn't have an equivalent, I have no way to effectively alert admins that certain pages should be deleted. Should I go ahead and edit the draft or continue the discussion on talk? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, Thank you for your quick response, and for sharing useful templates! I think they will all be a nice addition to the list. Yes, please feel free to make edits directly on the draft page. Srishti (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Reach consensus before making structural changes to the Netflix pages
Hi! Please always reach a consensus before you make structural changes to the netflix distributed programming pages. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Picsovina (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Picsovina, I did. That's why MOS:TABLECAPTION says that all data tables must have captions. Are you going to revert yourself? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I understand that it is something that is recommended by policy. I still think that it needs to be discussed on the talk page first, because this is not followed universally, like it has not been followed on the Netflix programming pages. Check for example this table: List of oldest living state leaders. I will not revert myself, but if you are adamant about this change, then go on, I will not revert again, but I think that you will experience opposition from frequent editors of the page. Picsovina (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Picsovina, Are you saying that we should have millions of talk page posts to convince users to do what is already in the MoS? I am genuinely confused by this: it's something that we should do, so why would we not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I understand that it is something that is recommended by policy. I still think that it needs to be discussed on the talk page first, because this is not followed universally, like it has not been followed on the Netflix programming pages. Check for example this table: List of oldest living state leaders. I will not revert myself, but if you are adamant about this change, then go on, I will not revert again, but I think that you will experience opposition from frequent editors of the page. Picsovina (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Accessibility with MOS:TABLECAPTION
Hi, I am working to understand application of MOS:TABLECAPTION. If I have a section that has nothing but a table, is the table caption still needed if the section heading also defines the table? See Michael P. Shawver for an example. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Erik, Yes, it is: captions and headers serve different semantic purposes. E.g. headers may be used for indexing at search engines or making an outline in OPML. Captions are used by screen readers to announce content. If you have a section that only contains a table, I would recommend including text, deleting the header, or just having both, as they do different things. Does that make sense? Is there something that I can do to help explain? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, header is the same thing as heading, right? So in the case of Michael P. Shawver, would the header-deleting approach mean there would be no "Filmography" section, just a "Background" section with the two paragraphs and then the table (that has the "Shawver's editing credits" caption)? I'm not sure if I am crazy about that. Are you saying the alternative is to have some introductory text under "Filmography" before showing the table? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Erik, Yeah, sorry if I was unclear: in HTML, there are six levels of headings as well as the header element. The former are used on Wikipedia with the MediaWiki code =H1=, ==H2==, ===H3===, etc. and the latter is not used on Wikipedia. So if you were using the "header-deleting approach", you would delete "Filmography", yes. And I am also suggesting that you could have text under "Filmography", exactly. Really, the header above that—Background—doesn't just give background like where he was born, where he went to school, his influences, etc. but just is his career. If there were a longer bio, Background could have that text followed by Career that has info on what he's done as a professional as well as this table. Those are my two cents. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that for me! Appreciate it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Erik, Yeah, sorry if I was unclear: in HTML, there are six levels of headings as well as the header element. The former are used on Wikipedia with the MediaWiki code =H1=, ==H2==, ===H3===, etc. and the latter is not used on Wikipedia. So if you were using the "header-deleting approach", you would delete "Filmography", yes. And I am also suggesting that you could have text under "Filmography", exactly. Really, the header above that—Background—doesn't just give background like where he was born, where he went to school, his influences, etc. but just is his career. If there were a longer bio, Background could have that text followed by Career that has info on what he's done as a professional as well as this table. Those are my two cents. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, header is the same thing as heading, right? So in the case of Michael P. Shawver, would the header-deleting approach mean there would be no "Filmography" section, just a "Background" section with the two paragraphs and then the table (that has the "Shawver's editing credits" caption)? I'm not sure if I am crazy about that. Are you saying the alternative is to have some introductory text under "Filmography" before showing the table? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"FTFY"
Don't be a dick, It wont end well for you. Your edits weren't fixing anything - Instead you've reopened old wounds and for what ?, Boredom?,
Either way the hatting can stay as is, If you have a problem you know where ANI is. –Davey2010Talk 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Davey2010, Samesies, Dave! Have a nice life. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please refer to me by my username only which to you is "Davey2010". Happy editing!. –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Davey2010, lol (lots of love) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please refer to me by my username only which to you is "Davey2010". Happy editing!. –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Christian Cooper, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The subject is a member of the LGBT community, involved in LGBT activism, and writes about LGBT characters. This is sourced in the article. Please do not remove relevant categories and WikiProjects. TJMSmith (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- TJMSmith, I thought my edit summary was pretty obvious: WP:V, there were no sources indicating that this biography belonged in that project. Why are you posting this here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Koavf,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Shonen Knife remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Shonen Knife remix 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! 16:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
"Jules César" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jules César. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jules César until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ska remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Ska remix 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! 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent CFD
Category:20th-century American racing drivers and Category:21st-century American racing drivers were OK, why did you start a CFD for those? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- NASCARfan0548, Because sports biography categories are not divided by century, even for events like boxing or archery that are millennia old, so this is not useful for navigation. Also, I don't think they were okay, since they were deleted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Song recordings produced by Matthew Sweet 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! 12:44, 20 June 2020 (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. |