User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luke Laird production discography

Why do you do this kind of stuff? Have you read Wikipedia:Splitting? And Wikipedia:Article size? You created an article that's 10k, with a split that is 14k. What's the point? Drmies (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • What is "production discography" anyway? It's quite easy to bring your discography back to a reasonable size, and that's to scrap the list of songs he wrote, since they're just songs and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be resumes. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:SPLIT - prose size of less than 40 kB does not justify a split. Hzh (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Hzh:, @Drmies:, actually, WP:SPLIT states that "Length alone does not justify division". You are welcome to take the issue to WP:AFD if you desire. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The size of the discography section still doesn't justify a split, it's roughly half the size, that's not disproportionate. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Hzh:, @Drmies:, though I do not agree, it is now two against one, so I have reverted my edits per WP:BRD. I, however, disagree about removing the "songs he wrote", provided that they become properly referenced in the near future. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with listing songs a songwriter wrote, although I am dubious about the way it is organized on the page with such excessive details. It should also probably be titled songwriting credits rather than songwriting discography. Hzh (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems like such articles are generally referred to as song list, e.g. List of songs written by Willie Nelson, List of songs written by Bob Dylan, and List of songs written by Diane Warren. Hzh (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Hzh:, @Drmies:, with that being said, would you object to a similar article entitled List of works by Luke Laird. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
At the moment I'd say the content doesn't warrant a separate article. Try to find sources first, tidy it up (for example there is no need to keep repeating full names and linking for the same name), and reorganize it (song names should be listed before the person who sang the song - the section is about the songs, not the singers). See what you end up with before splitting. Hzh (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hzh. I do not see how we should have list articles of everything. But what concerns me even more is this constant listing of everything, followed by the splitting of everything. Every little concert tour is notable, every song written needs to be mentioned, every single award has to be listed--so we get List of concert tours by X followed usually by a bunch of Concert tour Y by X articles (never mind that most those tours are not notable per NTOUR), List of songs written by X, List of awards and nominations received by X, and so on. And of course the navigational template to keep it all together. You know I'm not exaggerating this, Jax. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Drmies:, I understand and appreciate your concern. Though I have been told at times to just be bold, I like to put a split tag on an article and leave it for at least four weeks, which allows people time to comment. If the number of votes is against splitting, or evenly divided, I do not split the article at that time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Death Grips template

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there are no former members here; having the anything in bold means it does not automatically bold when placed on the article in question to indentify their inclusion in the template. What are your reasons for wanting it? The first version of the template (created by me many years go, incidentally) does not include bolding. GiantSnowman 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @GiantSnowman:, WP:OSE means that if one or a few items that are the minority have a feature, that does not mean that everything else should too. That being said, if a majority of the navigation boxes have the current members in bold, then this one probably should as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blue Jays–Rangers brawl

The article Blue Jays–Rangers brawl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Maybe fairly intense, maybe a good punch got thrown, but I don't see anything that makes this incident notable. If somebodies jaw or arm got broken, then maybe, but that didn't happen. A brawl is a brawl.

While all constructive 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. Safiel (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Blue Jays–Rangers brawl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Jays–Rangers brawl 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/Blue Jays–Rangers brawl 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 notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Kyani Inc"

Kyani Inc, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular..

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue Jays–Rangers brawl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slide. 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) 09:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 Houston fire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Houston fire 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/2016 Houston fire 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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dayco CSD removal

Hi Jax,

I came across the Dayco article a couple of days ago and found it to be one of the most obviously PR-written articles I've seen in a while. I saw the someone nominated the article for a G11 speedy deletion a couple of weeks ago and you removed the tag with a edit comment that referred to notability. I agree Dayco would be notable on its own but I don't see anything that can be salvaged from what's currently there. I was just wondering if you have anything to add on the article before putting it up for AFD or redirecting back to their parent company. --Michael Greiner 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Blue Jays–Rangers brawl listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blue Jays–Rangers brawl. Since you had some involvement with the Blue Jays–Rangers brawl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rlendog (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kyäni for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kyäni 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/Kyäni 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 notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

One source

Hi, while I added a source this time, let me quote the template documentation for future purposes:

Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality.

The point of the tag is to help make articles more neutral since only one partisan source could compromise that. That tag is really meant for long articles or those making controversial claims. However, this article was just a stub based on factual information. It really isn't constructive to add that to such a short article and wasn't necessary at all. In the future please try to think critically about why something is done rather than doing something merely because it seems compulsory. And most importantly, try to address the issue yourself first if you can; if you had a concern with the info about the commercial for example, just searching for the bridge's name would have turned up a page of sources. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2016 North American spring
added a link pointing to Record
2016 Oklahoma floods
added a link pointing to Record
Floods in the United States: 2001–present
added a link pointing to Record

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Degrassi

Stop fucking about. DrKay (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @DrKay:, WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's blatantly obvious that the link was added and you were just reverting for the sake of it. Look to your own behavior. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Reply - @DrKay:, oops, my bad. Also, it is a good idea to add a link to {{Degrassi}}, the page to which you are referring. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

El Río (album)

Album articles generally do not need a citation for the track listing (unless sources such as Allmusic don't list the writers, such as 24-7-365 (Neal McCoy album) or The Grohl Sessions, Vol. 1). Also, if you had bothered to check the article, you would see that the Boot source already in the article verified both the producer and all the writers, so there was need to slap {{citation needed}} all over the place when it would've been just as easy to add additional footnotes to the same source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Timmons Arena

An article that you have been involved in editing—Timmons Arena—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. NJ (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Song for Another Time

I've told you this many times before: LABELS DO NOT NEED CITATIONS IN SONG AND ALBUM ARTICLES. Also, if the album page indicates the producer and songwriters, then those generally do not need a citation in the song article as well (except in cases like Ripcord (album) where nearly every track has a different producer). Shane McAnally was the sole producer of Meat and Candy, so none of the song articles needs a separate citation identifying him as such. 05:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Higher (The Naked and Famous song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echo Park. 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) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TNAF Higher.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TNAF Higher.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Greatest Hits deletion

Is there some Wikipedia code saying that a Greatest Hits collection must have a Wiki page in order to be included in the band's template? If this is so, then fair enough; maybe one should just be created. Otherwise, why do you delete The Fixx Greatest Hits and ignore the talk page about the matter? MXVN (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @MXVN:, a navigation box is for existing articles, with the exception of a musical ensemble with multiple members, as omitting people can give the impression of the group being a solo act. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Bradley C. Kochmit

I noticed added a {{db-g6}} to Bradley Kochmit. Why would you move the page a few times if you want it at yet another different title? It seems like it was fine before at B. C. Kochmit. -- Tavix (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Tavix:, the default for biography article titles is "Firstname Lastname", and moving eventually creates redirects to the correct article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not true at all. The default for article titles is their WP:COMMONNAME. Moving the article a bunch of times creates issues that I described above, so please use #REDIRECT in the future. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Long article listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Long article. Since you had some involvement with the Long article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wishva de Silva | Talk 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Room to Breathe (Chase Bryant song)

Please do not create articles on new songs until they've at least charted. There's too little info on them until they've charted and had time to be reviewed or discussed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jennifer Nettles

If there has been a consensus to merge a template, please do not revert it without discussion. Do this again and I'll take it to ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It wasn't deleted, it was redirected. General rule is that you shouldn't immediately undo a redirect if consensus was reached to maintain the redirect. Instigating discussion for the split, like you've done by putting the "split" template on the Sugarland template, is a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, it has been more than one year since the redirect was put in place. Per WP:G4, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, [nor] pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". You are the one who nominated the template for discussion, and I am the only one who agreed to merge it, based on her discography at the time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album) 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/Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album) 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 notice from the top of the article. Slashme (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Showtek discography

Why on Earth are you warning me about WP:3RR? I reverted you once, but your one warning before it's even happened wouldn't stop anybody, dude. You overtag every article, and nobody likes it. I have seen multiple editors write edit summaries directed at your overtagging while reverting/removing them. Also, you never insert dates for your templates, a bot has to do it for you. You also insert them on the same lines as existing templates at the top of the article. IF you're going to be a stickler for sources, please do it properly and fill them out. Stop overtagging articles, it is unnecessary and annoys everybody. You created Showtek discography and now you want to whinge about how nothing on it is cited. Do it yourself maybe? Ss112 10:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Ss112:, you reverted me twice, not once. There are over 20 million users on Wikipedia, so the statement "nobody likes it" is likely an exaggeration. I now slightly agree, that if a properly referenced music album with one producer has a single with an article, that the label and/or name of producer may not need a reference. WRT dates, "Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended". Putting a template on the same line as other templates is not a big deal. I did not create Showtek discography, I merely split off existing text as it took up a large percentage of the Showtek article. After tagging Garrix discography, a multitude of proper references appeared in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't really consider the first manual removal of them a reversion; it likely counts under 3RR, but editors who raise 3RR when they're probably willing to go over that limit themselves to keep their own content in an article doesn't really give them a high ground. Besides, I don't care enough to fight with you over it. My end point was somebody else will probably remove most of them/all anyway, and I have seen enough evidence to know even somewhat generally that it annoys a significant amount of people; exaggeration maybe, but the point stays the same. I never said anything about redirects, I just think since they're usually later spelt out anyway, it's best to do it in the first place, along with adding a date, as it doesn't take a lot of time or extra effort. Ss112 15:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cotton2 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Alton Sterling 2.png

A tag has been placed on File:Alton Sterling 2.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

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 removed 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. Muffled Pocketed 17:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

>Hello, there!

Hi, Jax0677, I appreciate your work on the page Don Diablo discography. In what felt like eons ago, long before I became a WikiPedian, I tried to find the vocalist behind the song "Generations," by Don Diablo; and until tonight, I have never known who that mysterious vocalist was. You obviously knew who that vocalist was, and you subsequently added that vocalist information on the track, "Generations," which is listed in the singles table on the aforementioned page, Don Diablo discography. I don't know how you found out who sang on "Generations" by Don Diablo, but I just had to thank you for adding that info to Diablo's discogs page. Having all that be said, I was wondering if maybe you could find out the name of the artist that provides vocals for the song, "Daylight" by Mike Mago & KC Lights. It would mean the world to me if you could, but if not, that's fine. Nevertheless, I must warn you though: the words highlighted in pink, are linked, and once pressed, will redirect you to other wiki pages. Thank you, and have a good night. ;). P.s., please reply soon. Thanks again.


Sincerely, 

>Infopage100.


Infopage100 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Infopage100Infopage100 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Reply back - @Jax 0677:, Well, that my friend, is a truly heartbreaking fact. You would usually hear me approach displeasing news similar to that like this though: "that is real sucky. That really sucks." Anyways, good work on the page though.

:)

Sincerely, 

 >Infopage100.

Infopage100 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Infopage100Infopage100 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding business name to multi leve marking list.

Hello! I noticed you don't have a pyramid scheme/multi level marketing name that should be on here. It's called MCA or Motor Club of America aka Motor Club America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbalimuth (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Overtagging

Stop overtagging articles. This has got to stop. The whole article of G-Eazy discography is tagged as needing additional references. You are artificially widening columns, and this is not correct to do on discographies. It is generally always removed. Overtagging articles needs to stop, because it is not done elsewhere on Wikipedia, only articles you stumble upon and decide to inflict it on. You can find sources yourself to help, but you refuse to do it; all you do is tag them. I will take this further if you persist, and I'm pretty sure other editors will tell you you overtag and it is unnecessary to do. Ss112 09:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply - @Ss112:, the columns that are widened by {{cn}} should not be placed unreferenced on Wikipedia in the first place. It is not my job to find references for items that I do not place on Wikipedia. The last big article that I wrote was Myka Relocate, and I have appropriately cited just about everything that I put in there. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nobody said it was your job. Nobody really has "jobs" to do on Wikipedia. It's called helping out; instead of pointing out a problem, you can help rectify it. I don't know why you waited something like a year to start overtagging the G-Eazy discography article when you split it off from G-Eazy anyway. Whatever. You don't see citation needed templates widening columns in articles because other, experienced editors know it's not appropriate to put them in columns in the first place. It's also overkill to tag every section, and I'm pretty sure most people, if asked, will tell you this. So I don't know why you continue doing it; you asked "why was urs created then?" Well, it certainly wasn't created to tag every section on an article to death. One template at the top pointing out problems the article has overall is sufficient. People don't need to be specifically pointed to problems. Those who will help know where the issues are if you tag the article header. Ss112 14:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Reply - WP:OUTDATED states, "If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section" (I think the same applies to {{cn}} and {{urs}}). Putting {{cn}} and {{urs}} in articles has indeed inspired editors to add references (case in point, Garrix discography). If I need to omit the {{+r}} tag at the top, I will do my best to remember to do so in the future. If I don't use {{cn}} and {{urs}} in specific parts of the page, I believe that it will be harder for users to find the material that should and does not have references, especially on a long article. If I should not place {{cn}} and {{urs}} in the articles, this begs the question why these two templates exist at all. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You are just going around in circles and sticking to the same arguments; people who will reference are not going to do so because you shove tags in every single section; they know already by looking. That should be pretty obvious. Those templates were not made to overuse; most things in the world should be used in moderation, including these templates. No article is honestly that long people will not be able to find a section that is unreferenced. You act like you're helping people to find unreferenced material, but honestly from the amount of times I've seen your templates removed by people who are clearly annoyed by your overtagging, it's not helping, but hindering. You should be pointing out problems at the top of an article instead of thinking large tags in every small section a mere scroll of the mouse apart is something anybody wants to see. As I have said, I will seek definitive comments some time soon on this, and if consensus is reached about how much is too much tagging, I hope you will follow it. I'm pretty sure from a cursory glance around Wikipedia and even on under-referenced articles there not being tags flooding every section, you already have your answer but clearly you will not listen. It should honestly be common sense. Ss112 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Knee Defender, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilot, Newark and Table. 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) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Your Omen

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 Open Your Omen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2016 Nevada wildfire

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 2016 Nevada wildfire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed 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. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2016 Nevada wildfire
added links pointing to Washington and Evacuation
2016 in the United States
added a link pointing to Washington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TNAF Simple Forms.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TNAF Simple Forms.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Long article listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Long article. Since you had some involvement with the Long article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Gorthian (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage

The article 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. There is nothing here that has any long term significance.

While all constructive 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage 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/2016 Delta Air Lines power outage 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 notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ariel Bloomer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Clayton Fire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. This page is NOT about a living person. It is about a fire. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jax_0677 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: ). Thank you. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clayton Fire, you may be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Warnock Hinckley listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Warnock Hinckley. Since you had some involvement with the Warnock Hinckley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album). Since you had some involvement with the Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Delta Air Lines power outage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Jay Z Albums Discography listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jay Z Albums Discography. Since you had some involvement with the Jay Z Albums Discography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Too Young (Post Malone song)

I'm so confused on why you moved the page to Post Malone's real name, can you tell me why?? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @JustDoItFettyg:, the redirect bots will automatically fix these types of issues. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to leave a message about this exact topic. Redirect bots don't always fix double redirects; I fixed several of yours earlier on that would seriously have taken two seconds to fix because you move pages around to completely different namespaces in order to all redirect them. I don't know why you can't do it yourself. Do you leave everything up to bots? Ss112 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Ss112:, more often than not, the tag dates and double redirects are fixed by bots. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't take much time or effort to fix them yourself, especially if you caused them by moving disparate namespaces to each other. Ss112 14:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Ss112:, actually, the collective amount of time does add up after a while. BTW, {{urs}} states that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I've really gotten the impression from these talk page replies and other users' experiences with you that you'll find any excuse not to do any of the more involved "work" yourself. Also, another topic jump—sure, it says that, but you left the tag there for barely two months. Not really long enough to justify removing it when it's merged back into an article. You were omitting the existence of actual albums; you just couldn't bother taking a few seconds to source URLs for them, which seems to be a big concern. Frankly, I don't understand users on Wikipedia who constantly go around and tag problems but never actually fix any themselves. You clearly have an issue with the content, but can't fix the problem, then you claim "I don't have to, I just tag it and hope others will", which per the "essays" on overtagging (as that is what you do to articles where you highlight said issues), doesn't actually lead to them being solved all that often. Ss112 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Ss112:, User:op47 once told me that he leaves split tags on an article for at least one month before dividing an article. Templates {{urs}} and {{LR}} exist for a reason, and WP:OUTDATED states that if one does not have time to update an article, they can use {{otd}}. Laziness is the purpose of redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bare url

I see that you are sticking {{lr}} all over the place, sometimes when there is only one bare url. Can I ask you why you won't fix the issue yourself? Hzh (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - Because it takes a great deal of time, and often User:Derek R Bullamore and others will correct the issue within a few days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the note? You only have to click on Refill link, and the job is done in a few clicks. It would have fixed Girl Problems and Chris Lane that you just left the {{lr}}. Unless there are many bare url difficult to fill by the Refill tool and had to be done by hand, you don't need to leave the tag on. Hzh (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Reply - @Hzh:, added together, all of the sites that I have tagged take time. At WP:OUTDATED, it says that you may use the {{otd}} tag if you do not have time to update the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - To be fair about this, it generally takes much longer to do the necessary work to remove {{lr}} tags, than it does to place them. But not always. You could do your part by being more selective in the placing of such tags, and utilise Refill and/or Reflinks yourself, thus reducing the workload for others.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dtrbd listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dtrbd. Since you had some involvement with the Dtrbd redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dstrbd listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dstrbd. Since you had some involvement with the Dstrbd redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting discographies

You're doing a lot of this based on char count, and char count is not content. If you look at Wax (rapper), I undid your 5361 char move, deleted the table formatting, and saved 2063 chars with no loss of content. In short, I cut it almost in half, and instead of being a third of the page, it's a little less than a quarter. I'm also pretty sure the entire music video section is worthless, but I'm going to leave it for the moment. Size aside, you split a discography out into a standalone article for an artist who charted one song for one week in Germany in 15 years as a recording artist. Can you please "publicize" these split ideas of yours to a relevant project talk page in the future? There's too much unilateral activity on these. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply - @MSJapan:, why is Wax discography still in {{Wax}}, and redirecting to the TOP of the Wax (rapper) article? After posting {{splitsection}} to music article, I have been told to simply be bold and split out the discography right away. This is why I allow over one month for people to respond. These discography reverts should probably be taken to WP:AFD for discussion if the discography page has been up for several weeks. Even 5FDP and 5fdp discography do not total more than 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
That would probably because I forgot about the template, and don't like section redirects. I'll fix that stuff. The problem is that you're "allowing a month" on articles people aren't watching; so you could allow a year and you'd get the same response as if you allowed five minutes, which is none, and I think you've seen that. Discographies are not split out by default just because they're there, and you really need to get eyes on it first. When you broke out Jay Z's discog, you made a significant change to a stable article. When you did it with Wax, you aided in creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN because of the way people perceive standalone articles and bluelinks. Like I said, the guy charted one song for one week in fifteen years. In short, you need to change your methodology, IAR notwithstanding. MSJapan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wax

Template:Wax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Straight From The Barrio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Straight From The Barrio. Since you had some involvement with the Straight From The Barrio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Straight From the Barrio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Straight From the Barrio. Since you had some involvement with the Straight From the Barrio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_14&oldid=1094607168"