User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jax 0677. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Template:Slim Whitman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 12:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Middle Class Rut has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:The Isley Brothers
Hi. I noticed that you had created Template:The Isley Brothers, but after editing, it became a redirect to itself. To resolve this, I am proposing that this template be speedily under WP:CSD#G6 to allow a move of Template:Isley Brothers to this name. It seems to me that the template should reflect the official name of the group (and therefore be consistent with the article The Isley Brothers). Let me know if you don't agree. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Oops, my intent was to make Template:The Isley Brothers redirect to Template:Isley Brothers. However, I think the template title should match the article title when there is no bracketed/parenthetical suffix. Please feel free to delete Template:The Isley Brothers temporarily so that Template:Isley Brothers can be moved there. Please leave a redirect from Template:Isley Brothers to Template:The Isley Brothers.--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- My speedy deletion request was declined, so I just went back to your original intention and redirected Template:The Isley Brothers to Template:Isley Brothers. – Wdchk (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- You can request a move at WP:RM. Good luck.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- My speedy deletion request was declined, so I just went back to your original intention and redirected Template:The Isley Brothers to Template:Isley Brothers. – Wdchk (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:AGCO
Another messy template. Don't you check the links? Don't you know how to properly add a template to an article by now? Do you wonder why people always seem to want to dump the templates you create? That would would be because you don't take enough care and finish the job before you release them. Get you act together! Martin Morin (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:The Ducky Boys
A tag has been placed on Template:The Ducky Boys requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Banner talk 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Shabba Ranks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Lower Than Atlantis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Endwell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:The Hoover Company has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Trace Bundy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Dyson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Phil Keaggy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Automatic Loveletter listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Automatic Loveletter. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Automatic Loveletter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Allis-Chalmers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Templates
Just a heads-up: we generally don't approve of cross-namespace redirects (i.e., redirecting from "Template:X" to "X"). If you want to make templates on artists, you're allowed to within reason, but please don't use the Template: namespace to hold a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No Country for Old Men
Due to the intollerable attempts at article ownership by two editors who refuse to "allow" reducing the size of this article to a reasonable length, it is now in dispute resolution. I invite you to comment in the process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FNo_Country_for_Old_Men_.28film.29
Jasoncward (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recover (Automatic Loveletter EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Position of navboxes
Hello, when you add a navbox to an article, as you did to Chris de Burgh, please position it above the categories (or the defaultsort text if the article has any), rather than at the very end of the article. Thanks! Graham87 10:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Changing Tune has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable musical release. One ref with blurb that shows no evidence of having listened to the album. No evidence of charting. No evidence of reviews.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 09:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Nancy Sinatra
Why did you add Template:Nancy Sinatra to "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)"? I have undone this edit. Wait until her singles are added to her template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:LFO has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 11:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Crossbreed listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Crossbreed. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Crossbreed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 12:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:The Banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of O. J. Murdock
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 O. J. Murdock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ...William 15:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hard work...
... is okay, but could you please keep an eye on links to disambiguation pages in the templates? Thanks. The Banner talk 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You have to be kidding. This links to disambiguation pages. Why would you do that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Virgin Records has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Atlantic Records, along with other similar templates for record labels, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Massacre has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Massacre (experimental band) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 02:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 02:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:The Damned Things has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:The Receiving End of Sirens has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 15:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Against All Will
Category:Against All Will, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
George Clinton template
Hi. I noticed that you've created a new template, {{George Clinton}}. I think it duplicates the relevant section of {{P-Funk}}, and I'm not sure why we need two templates that seem to serve the same function.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I just resolved this issue by adding "George Clinton Family Series albums" and "Singles".--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Between Here and Lost, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 04:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Template Bach
This template looks nice, but why put it on the discography of a specific piece? People who came there will know about his background or not care, I assume. This goes for his compositions the same. Before implementing more, please discuss the topic on Project Classical music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting the discussion. Now please wait a week, better two, for comments and hopefully a consensus, before you install more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please wait. I don't want to have to ask an admin to look into this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do I have to wait? People are permitted to edit Wikipedia, which is the whole point of a volunteer project. The compositions are directly related to JSB, so there's no reason I can't put them on there.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you can add, off course. But then if three people tell you that they don't want the template, you perhaps stop, think, contact them on their talk. But you did better, you started a project discussion, now please wait for a consensus. PATIENCE is the best tool around here, and "consensus" highly desirable however difficult sometimes to judge, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do I have to wait? People are permitted to edit Wikipedia, which is the whole point of a volunteer project. The compositions are directly related to JSB, so there's no reason I can't put them on there.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
engineer in the vehicle industry?
The vehicle industry must be treating you well. I was in the vehicle industry for about a decade and am now homeless. May I ask what you do? You can reply on my talk page or via email. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Funkadelic template
Hello. Another editor started a discussion about {{Funkadelic}} at Template talk:P-Funk#Funkadelic template. I would appreciate your input there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Integrity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:This template is used in several articles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011-12 UEFA Europa League second qualifying round, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goran Jerković (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Lord navbox
Hi, Jax. You broke a lot of pages about biblical subjects when you changed Template:Lord to a navbox. Could you choose another page name, or manually avoid the redirect on every page where this is used before changing it back? Thanks. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories
Hello, Jax 0677,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, — ṞṈ™ 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories
Hello, Jax 0677,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, — ṞṈ™ 02:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Notable events in American television in January 2012
Hello, Jax 0677,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Notable events in American television in January 2012 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable events in American television in January 2012 .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, — ṞṈ™ 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of full budget downloadable PlayStation 3 games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mastiff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
George Jones
not sure why Template:George Jones was move to Template:User:TenPoundHammer/George Jones, but I moved it to User:Jax 0677/George Jones, since I could not move it back. I have no opinion on where it should be other than not have it in some strange Template:User:TenPoundHammer namespace. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I moved it because in its current form, it's way too small. Can you please fill out templates as much as possible before putting them in the template space? Please, put more links on this before you do anything else. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - TPH, even you don't testify to that (being way to small). According to WP:NENAN (which you wrote), "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five". As I said before, there is no way that I am placing all of the dozens of albums and musicians of Pigface in Template:Pigface, as it would take forever, similar to Template:George Jones. Per your request, I added more links to the navbox. TfD exists for the purpose of DISCUSSING and removing templates that should not be there. Also, please read WP:TOOSHORT which states "Wikipedia has many stubs" which "should not be deleted for this reason".
- --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are willing to create hundreds of incomplete navboxes just so every article has one, but you are unwilling to put in the work to make them useful and complete. The George Jones navbox is completely inadequate and useless for his body of work. You should focus on creating quality navboxes not shells. Note that articles can be stubs; there is no such thing as stub templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Template:George Jones had a link to his Discography page, which does in fact save a step in navigating. According to WP:TOOSHORT, "For articles and other material with the same issues", "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept".--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are willing to create hundreds of incomplete navboxes just so every article has one, but you are unwilling to put in the work to make them useful and complete. The George Jones navbox is completely inadequate and useless for his body of work. You should focus on creating quality navboxes not shells. Note that articles can be stubs; there is no such thing as stub templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- But again. Why, why can you not be arsed to do the work yourself? All you're doing is cluttering up the navbox space with crap that you're too damn lazy to fix on your own. Either do all the work before you throw a template out there, or don't start it in the first place. What you're doing right now is called laziness. Please, please stop half assing everything like this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - "Wikipedia has many stubs" which (per WP:IDEALSTUB) "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". I also remember reading somewhere that if you do not have time to create an entire article, create a stub.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Templates do not fall under that at all. WP:IDEALSTUB applies only to articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Again, "For articles and other material with the same issues", "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept".--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're combining two different sections. WP:INVALID says "other material with the same issues". One of its subsections, WP:TOOSHORT, is specifically about stub articles and says "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept". Templates cannot be stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Using an explicit interpretation of WP:TOOSHORT in and of itself, it would be restricted to articles and not templates. Using a reasonable interpretation of WP:TOOSHORT, "WP:TOOSHORT" falls under WP:INVALID which states "For articles and other material with the same issues, deletion is not recommended, but the actions below are". The first sentence of "WP:INVALID" in and of itself is all inclusive implying that the subsections are "inclusive, but not limited to the following".--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, because there are other sections below TOOSHORT in which INVALID applies to as well. "Other material with the same issues" applies to those sections in which it is not restricted to just articles. TOOSHORT is specifically about stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Loose versus explicit interpretation my friend. If this is the case, why is "Dislike of the subject" the only subsection that does not refer to articles?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, because there are other sections below TOOSHORT in which INVALID applies to as well. "Other material with the same issues" applies to those sections in which it is not restricted to just articles. TOOSHORT is specifically about stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Using an explicit interpretation of WP:TOOSHORT in and of itself, it would be restricted to articles and not templates. Using a reasonable interpretation of WP:TOOSHORT, "WP:TOOSHORT" falls under WP:INVALID which states "For articles and other material with the same issues, deletion is not recommended, but the actions below are". The first sentence of "WP:INVALID" in and of itself is all inclusive implying that the subsections are "inclusive, but not limited to the following".--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're combining two different sections. WP:INVALID says "other material with the same issues". One of its subsections, WP:TOOSHORT, is specifically about stub articles and says "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept". Templates cannot be stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Again, "For articles and other material with the same issues", "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept".--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Templates do not fall under that at all. WP:IDEALSTUB applies only to articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - "Wikipedia has many stubs" which (per WP:IDEALSTUB) "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". I also remember reading somewhere that if you do not have time to create an entire article, create a stub.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Killings by Law Enforcement
Hello! Thanks for your contributions to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012. The article has only recently been split into months and we are working to figure out the best way to organize everything. If you would like to join in on the discussion on the Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012, we'd love to have you! Michellecornelison (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Split tags
Hallo. Just 2 quick notes, about {{split}}. 1. Please try to put maintenance tags at the very top of articles (under hatnotes, but above lead-sections). 2. And take a re-read through WP:SIZE to get an overview of best practices (we try to avoid splitting as much as possible, as it makes various things harder (researching/reading the actual articles, watchlisting all the pages for vandalism, keeping duplicated intro-paragraphs in sync, etc). Thanks! :) —Quiddity (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Thanks Quiddity. I appreciate the feedback. Sometimes placing the split tag at the very top instead of editing one section takes forever and crashes my browser. I have recently learned that split tags list the article topics in a conspicuous place so that consensus can be reached about whether or not to split. This is how I try to follow the consensus of the community.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- For editing lead sections, I highly recommend changing this setting: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets -> Appearance -> "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Very useful :) —Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Megas
Can you explain to me how you work? You come across an artist that has that has at least 5 albums/songs and does not have a navbox so you decide to create one for that artist. Nothing wrong with that to be sure. But if the artist has more than 5 articles which can be added to that navbox, is it that you just don't care? I just came across the {{Megas}} navbox you created and noticed that you added the minimal standard of 5 articles even though this artist has 4 more albums that could be added to it. But then, you added the template to those 4 other albums but not to the 5 that are in the template. You obviously like putting the work in and have a goal to have navboxes for as many articles as possible, but why is it so difficult to make adequate templates from the getgo? Do you know how much time this would save you and others from having to defend your template creations in TfDs? It would be one thing if this information wasn't readily available to you, but it's all right there in the articles of the artists for whom you're creating these navboxes. There's no rush to make all these templates in the shortest time possible. Take it slow, create one, make it complete and nice, everyone will be happy about it, then move on to the next one.
My suggestion for you before creating the next template:
- You decide a particular artist should have a navbox.
- Add all pertinent and relevant articles to the navbox, not just 5 (unless that's all there is).
- Add the navbox to each of the articles listed in the navbox (although not necessarily to all "related articles")
- Don't create a navbox for an artist who should have enough articles for a navbox but doesn't. If you think so, create the articles first. If you don't want to create the articles, don't create the template.
- Don't create a navbox for an artist who has so many articles that you don't want to take the time to add them all in to a navbox. Start them in your userspace and move them to mainspace when they are ready (again, take your time). You may also want to find some collaborators for some of these larger navboxes that you think are too big. I'm sure if you go to the talk pages of the topic articles, you will find interested volunteers to help out.
I just think it would be better to work with the community rather than antagonize them, even though I know that is not your intent. Please just take this as friendly advice. I have nothing against the navboxes you create. They survive TfDs because there is a sufficient number of articles for the topic to warrant them, but wouldn't you like to avoid these TfDs altogether? Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - As I mentioned before, I believe in WP:ANOEP (or at least most pages where it is feasible). Also, there is no way I am adding all of the musicians of Pigface, as that would take forever. My templates for Glen Campbell, Hank Williams, Jr. and England Dan & John Ford Coley grew quite rapidly after I created them. However, I will consider putting potentially large navboxes on the talk page itself so that users can collaborate on them. The recent TfDs come from articles that were created long before I knew much about what the WP:NENAN rule of five entailed (revised to exclude the backlink or otherwise). Now that I know more about the rule of five, I try to stay above that (unless perhaps the article has four albums, or four singles, since 5 is not a hard and fast rule).
- To create templates for Rick Springfield and Michael Bolton, I had to paste the album and song tables into Microsoft Excel, then copy the column from Excel, paste that into Notepad, then paste that into Wikipedia, then add asterisks and brackets before and after the album names. To do this on hundreds of navboxes was quite time consuming, especially when the artist had dozens of articles. I have tried placing the templates on WP:RT, but to the best of my recollection, only Template:Imagine Dragons has been dispositioned. Even templates like Template:Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show have been sent to TfD despite having a sufficient number of articles. Creating part of a navbox, like creating part of an article, puts Wikipedia on its way to being complete. TfD has the opposite effect of this, especially when the topic has more than enough articles, or the potential for the same. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- But why is so difficult to add in the article for the song The Stand (song) into the navbox for {{Mother Mother}} even though you took the time to add the template to the article itself? And what's so hard about then adding the template to each article that it should be placed instead of just a select few. To make Wikipedia a better place to come for information is to provide complete and accurate information and not just expect that others may chip in. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - To create and implement each template takes more than 5 minutes each (this is a low estimate). Multiply that by close to 1000 templates that I have created so far, and that comes out to almost 80 hours (if not more). There are close to 200 unfinished navboxes in my list of "Templates to Create". The information in the templates is accurate and WP:WIP. If completeness is an issue, then stubs should be deleted in a manner similar to Spanish Wikipedia, as people there have created hundreds of stubs, and then abandonded those stubs.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- But why is so difficult to add in the article for the song The Stand (song) into the navbox for {{Mother Mother}} even though you took the time to add the template to the article itself? And what's so hard about then adding the template to each article that it should be placed instead of just a select few. To make Wikipedia a better place to come for information is to provide complete and accurate information and not just expect that others may chip in. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of List of news media phone hacking scandal civil suits, payments and commercial consequences for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of news media phone hacking scandal civil suits, payments and commercial consequences 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/List of news media phone hacking scandal civil suits, payments and commercial consequences until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. T.I.M(Contact) 23:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C), appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, List of English words of French origin. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C) at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Your contributed article, List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of English words of French origin. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of English words of French origin – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Rushbugled13 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Removing Speedy at List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C)
Hi Jax 0677, you recently removed a deletion tag from List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C). Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Though you shouldn't have removed the tag yourself, the speedy tag should never have been placed, and, As reviewing administrator, I removed it, and struck out the above paragraph.
I also removed the redundant text. Remember to do that when you create the further splits of that article. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coeur d'Alene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Eunice Penix for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eunice Penix 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/Eunice Penix until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you participate in the discussion on the AfD talk page instead of hoping that idiotic notification that has nothing to do with Penix's complete lack of notability will divert attention? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Why don't you stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR? Why don't you allow an uninvolved administrator remove the post?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously? Dude, what I am moving to the talk page isn't about the AfD, it is you complaining about something. Why on earth can you not see that it belongs on the talk page and not in the middle of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - Seriously? Dude, you removed the NOTIFICATION three times in violation of WP:3RR. Then instead of having an uninvolved administrator remove the content, you kept doing it yourself. You kept removing the section which was about you removing the NOTIFICATION three times in violation of 3RR. Why on earth can you not see that this is a vio of WP policy? Why on earth can't you allow an uninvolved administrator to remove the content?--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- There you go......an uninvolved admin collapsed the unrelated sectiosn, titling them as unrelated. What a waste of time to make someone else do what was so blatantly obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - The admin COLLAPSED the sections, NOT DELETED the sections. There is a big difference. Besides, it is a conflict of interest for the initiator of an AfD to pick and choose writing in that very AfD to obscure that might possibly be relevant to an AfD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to deleted comment - My point was not that the material was not relevant. My point was that a neutral person should disposition the comments, not an interested party. If deleting the comments was the correct thing to do, why were they collapsed instead of deleted? I know exactly where the talk page is, and removing material from the page is the same as deleting material from the page, even if it is placed on the talk page, which is viewed less often. And you are again using profanity in a non-encyclopedic manner. If my article was litter, then it should have been deleted a long time ago.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of National Football Conference West Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of Asilidae species: D, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of Asilidae species: D-Z. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on List of Borussia Dortmund football transfers summer 2011, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, List of German football transfers summer 2011. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of Borussia Dortmund football transfers summer 2011 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, May 2012, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, June 2012. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, May 2012 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
wakey, wakey...
Mind the links to disambiguation pages... The Banner talk 22:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jax 0677, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on Layout of the Port of Tianjin, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Port of Tianjin. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Layout of the Port of Tianjin at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Armenian religion in Cyprus, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Armenians in Cyprus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armenian religion in Cyprus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turkish invasion and Mekhitar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:KGC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Deepblue1 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of National Football Conference South Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of National Football Conference West Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)