User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 16

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

Hiya!

I think you may have misread WP:MUG, it doesn't mean we are not allowed to use mugshots. It means that we are not allowed to use Bill Gates' mugshot Tim Allen's mugshot as the only image on his article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @The Quixotic Potato:, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed." --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Do not revert again, because you misinterpret WP:MUG. WP:MUG means that we can use a mugshot in the correct context. So for a mass murderer we can use a mugshot, but for someone like Tim Allen we can not (because it would be out of context, and present him in a disparaging light). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. I struck through the name Bill Gates because that was the worst possible example I could've picked (but it was the first mugshot of a celebrity I could think of).

Category:Musical ensembles with no original members has been nominated for discussion

Category:Musical ensembles with no original members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brothers Osborne

Template:Brothers Osborne has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting pages

Please stop creating and redirecting empty pages to other pages (Joi Cardwell discography) as you did with many of Joi Cardwell's discography releases. I would never attack another user, but that was really stupid of you to do and upsetting to have to fix. Redirecting a page and summing up the edit as "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." is not a proper excuse for that. "Redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external"??? Uhm, those pages don't have any prior history, deletion, or any pages linking to it. Redirecting it to a discography also does not give more insight about the 'redirected pages' either. If you are going to create an album page, please do it according to Wikipedia standards. Horizonlove (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Horizonlove:, per WP:NM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", which implies a redirect. Also see WP:BLANK. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • But the point is that these pages didn't exist until you created and redirected them. I looked at the pages' history log and they did not have any information on them, so it was pointless to create them for the purpose of a redirect. I'm just asking that you stop doing that. A respected encyclopedia does not keep redirecting the content that it is supposed to have, as per WP:NOTBROKEN. Horizonlove (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Horizonlove:, per WP:NSONG, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". Album titles can redirect in a similar manner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to continue to the argument, but you are missing the point. The pages were never created. You created it, only for senseless redirects! Don't do that anymore. There is no need for it and it violates WP:NOTBROKEN. It would be different if they were already created and someone nominated it for deletion or merge, but that isn't the case. If you did it to indicate , then that is fine. But the lapse in time between when the pages' creation up to now suggest that you merely created "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. When I look at "What links here" for the pages, nothing links there so it was pointless to create a empty page only to redirect it. Also if I were to link the articles under the assumption that something was there before reading it myself, it would create the WP:SELFREDIRECT problem. Horizonlove (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That would have made sense if there was something there to merge it with, but these were empty pages/dead links before that linked to nothing. Like they say, "if it's not broke, don't fix it!" Horizonlove (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Horizonlove:, see WP:POFR "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your habit of creating redirects via moves is a terrible practice. That method leaves a misleading {{R from move}} on the original redirect and leaves a double redirect that needs repair. There are other redirect categorization templates that should be going on these redirects; albums should have {{R with possibilities}} and/or {{R from subtopic}} as well as {{R from album}}. If you are going to create redirects, create them from scratch (not via move) and please apply appropriate categorization templates. Plantdrew (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: - You need to leave the Template:Joi Cardwell alone. I just started the template a few hours ago, and now you are making reverts. I'm trying to clean up your mess. Technically the pages are already created since you did created them yourself for the sole purpose of redirection. So it doesn't violate WP:WTAF. Any further edits would be disruptive. Horizonlove (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Horizonlove:, WP:WTAF states "Editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject BEFORE adding a link to the article in list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates. New articles must satisfy the notability guideline and core content policies." Redirects are not articles. Some of the links in the navbox connect to articles that have nothing to do with Joi Cardwell. Please revert any links that are not articles, or I will take to WP:DR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: - Editor are encouraged to be productive, not disruptive. You are more than welcome to go to the WP:DR, but also realize that they will review your edits and see your bad practices of page creations for redirects, which you were warned about by Plantdrew, yet you continue to do. However everything I have done has been good practice and my edits were to cleanup all Joi Cardwell-related articles that you made a mess of, which I have done and continue doing with good time. Also, as the in-use template states, "courteous users should leave it alone until you're [i.e. Horizonlove] done". You seem to be the only one who has a problem with the template that was created less than 24 hours ago. Horizonlove (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Streetlight Social listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Streetlight Social. Since you had some involvement with the Streetlight Social redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Improper tagging

Hello Jax 0677, I noticed the "additional citations" tags you added to Martin Garrix and Martin Garrix discography. I doubt if you understand how these tags work because you added them to properly cited sections but didn't add them to poor ones. For example, the remixes section on Martin Garrix discography consists of only YouTube and Soundcloud references which aren't considered reliable but you didn't tag that section. The awards and nominations section on the Martin Garrix article has proper citations with reliable sources but you tagged that one. That led me to think you don't clearly understand how the tags work. I hope you would consider reading WP:ILC to learn more about inline citations. - TheMagnificentist 08:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @TheMagnificentist:, both of those sections have multiple listings that are not properly cited. Instead of tagging each entry individually, I have tagged the entire section, so that people do not complain about me using too many tags. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand but you tagged the wrong sections though. - TheMagnificentist 09:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - Nope, "World Music Awards" and "Oops" are not cited. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
When there's one or two uncited lines then the tag isn't necessary. The tag is meant for sections with only few improper citations. - TheMagnificentist 09:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. - TheMagnificentist 09:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Zark page which was deleted few minutes ago. - TheMagnificentist 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tagging again

We really don't appreciate your over-zealous tagging, the latest one in Old Dominion (band). If you know any different numbers from what's indicated in the page, then change it, otherwise please stop doing this. I did not see anything that needs updating. Hzh (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is the new single you are referring to, it is only a day, so you are misusing the tag. Wikipedia is not a news service that needs up to the minute update. Hzh (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So you know it is the single. And what is the problem with you adding it yourself? You do know that WP:OUTDATED is about deleting article and absolutely has nothing to do with this? We actually prefer to have official confirmation (e.g. an add date), so it might not even be regarded as a missing information, therefore may not be outdated at all. Hzh (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - On phone. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If you cannot edit properly, then I would suggest that you don't. Hzh (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to say now that you constantly adding tags is becoming disruptive. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

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.

IEEE style
added links pointing to Format, Style and Research paper
International Society for Quality Electronic Design
added links pointing to Event, Electronic and Quality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science

Please see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. It is not true that Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science relied only on a single source. There were three inline citations, in two different but equally-valid formats (one footnote, two in parenthetical format). In addition there was a fourth source listed in the references section but not cited inline For such a short article, that does not seem like a too-low level of citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing and read it this time. Parenthetical citations are valid as inline citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Histmerge

Please don't place histmerge templates on articles I created where you obviously just want to take credit for creating a wrong namespace and overwrite what I did. If you think I copypasted anything from what that IP address created at your erroneous name space, I think that's a bit rich considering it was a stub, it was unsourced, the information was simple and what was there in the infobox could be typed out again in a mere minute or two with additional and complete information, which I did. Don't try and take credit for something you didn't do. What I wrote has no basis in the history at your redirect. Ss112 16:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The only similarities I see are "[title] is a song co-written and recorded by American country music artist Brett Eldredge." Which I got as the lead sentence from looking at Wanna Be That Song. Ss112 16:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The admin Anthony Appleyard has rejected your histmerge proposal, saying there is "no evidence of a cut-and-paste event" and cited WP:Parallel histories: "If the two pages have separate origins and simultaneous separate parallel histories before they were text-merged, they should not be history-merged, as that would shuffle the parallel editing histories together in one list and make a mess." Ss112 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well?

Just curious....[1] 172.125.73.56 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamara Duarte for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamara Duarte 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/Tamara Duarte 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. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Markham, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Country Club Hills. 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) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I noticed that Beware of Darkness discography and Echosmith discography have been nominated for deletion. I was hoping you could explain a little more why so I can improve these pages so they don't get deleted. I created these pages because the discography section on the actual article is for studio albums only. Thanks. Bowling is life (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In other words, these should probably be merged into the artist page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Every Where Is Some Where

Please don't move pages to incorrect namespaces, nor do this to create further redirects. Per MOS:CT, the I in "Is" should be capitalised in titles. Ss112 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Plastic

Not sure if you're aware that you inserted many new lines at the top of Plastic? I fixed and moved the maintenance template to the correct place, regards Widefox; talk 18:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Widefox:, sorry about that, editing from a mobile telephone is not as easy as it looks, hence the slight error. When the {{LR}} template is removed and the references are completed, it would go back to the way it was. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Yeah normally Derek B fixes them quickly but it had gone almost an hour with a major article looking weird. Regards Widefox; talk 10:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Interstate 20 closure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interstate 20 closure 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/Interstate 20 closure 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. A412 (Talk • C) 00:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Eleby listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eleby (and other redirects to Interstate 85 bridge collapse). Since you had some involvement with the Eleby redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 20 closure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Close. 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) 09:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving redirects others created

Please don't move redirects others created. There was no reason to move my redirect, Am I Savage?, to Am I Savage. If you want to create a redirect, please do so yourself. It takes just as long as moving a page. Don't move others' for no reason, so if somebody creates the page there, you are then seen as the original redirect "creator", which is quite dishonest, because you weren't. Thank you. Ss112 12:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nights with You

Just because someone undoes your edit, does not mean that they have actually removed the content you added. It was a way of sending a notification to you that you added a bunch of unnecessary spaces in, and that songs need more specific tags than "stub". If you were editing off a phone, then perhaps you could not see that I did not remove your tags. Besides, the article is not notable and fails WP:NSONGS at the moment, so it's been redirected until it charts or has more coverage added. Ss112 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Beware of Darkness

Template:Beware of Darkness has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages to create redirects

You were previously told, even by an administrator as far as I'm aware, not to move pages to disparate namespaces to create redirects, as this leaves the R from move tag on the page, and also leaves the fact that the page was moved elsewhere in its history. Please stop doing this. Just create the new pages as redirects. It is very easy to do. It is not correct to move pages to different song and album titles to create redirects and has no benefits. You have done it far too often and sometimes it seems you go on a spree of doing this, and do a round robin move to 20 different namespaces and leave a bot to clean up your mess of double redirects. If you continue to do this, I will notify an administrator (seemingly again), because it seems no other option will get you to stop doing it. Ss112 16:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I second this. Moving pages several times solely to create redirects is disruptive. Don't do this. -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 12#Schnabl (surname)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 12#Schnabl (surname): Closing a discussion is an assessment of consensus. No one used WP:CHEAP to advocate keeping that redirect. Therefore, saying that it's kept "per WP:CHEAP" isn't accurate. When you close a redirect discussion, you must remove the RfD tags on the redirects. Could you go back and do that? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Tavix:, I just fixed the issue. Please let me know if this is acceptable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 18#Boom Boom Boom (disambiguation) your closing summary (" Retarget . [Retarget to Boom Boom as the easiest resolution.]" implies that there were multiple options presented with little to choose between them and so you used a bit of discretion to pick one of those options (although simply being the "easiest" is not always going to be the best). However this was not the case - that was the first and only option actually presented and was unanimously supported. Further, when you removed the RfD tag from the redirect you also removed the categorisation template [2] which should only be done if they are incorrect (in which case they should usually be replaced with something that is) but {{R with history}} is clearly not going to cease to be relevant. I've fixed it for you but please take more care. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Thryduulf:, thank you very much for your feedback. I am learning about how to close XFD, but I will try to be more careful in the future. Someone told me that if I want my discussions closed sooner, that I should close other discussions by myself, if it is easy enough for me to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. For future use, when making an album page with an American artist, please use MDY formatting. If it's a British artist, use DMY. I already fixed it on Love Hope Faith. --Jennica✿ / talk 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your close. Yung_Simmie

Hi. I think your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yung_Simmie is overly bland. A lot more is evident in that discussion than is summarised by the words "no consensus". Could you please expand the close to reflect the gist of all the comments? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @SmokeyJoe:, I have adding more wording to the close. Please let me know if this works. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, just my two pence after SmokeyJoe's correct advise. Given that the Afd was relisted multiple times (in other words, the Afd was already in the 'no consensus' range as no clear view was evident), and given that in the final week, there were two 'keep' !votes, the Afd should have been closed as a 'Keep' and not a 'no consensus'. The Afd would have been closed as a no consensus in case nobody had commented in the final week. You may consider changing your close here (you may ignore this advise too; I have no issues with that). Thanks. Lourdes 02:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

List of killings by law enforcement officers

Please user proper format when adding entries on List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, and don't add the name of Jordan Edwards as i have already added it on list of May. Redhat101 Talk 02:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Redhat101:, if you read the articles carefully, you will see that the death happened on Saturday, April 29, 2017. For this reason, I marked the date with {{nicg}} & {{when}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: Ok, I fixed it.Redhat101 Talk 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Hi, Again don't throw entries like darts, use proper format like this. Redhat101 Talk 00:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC) 

|-
| Date ||  [[Victim Name]] || [[Location]] || Brief Description <ref>Reference</ref>
|-

Singles stats on Linkin Park album pages

We don't need "consistency" in this manner. EthanRossie2000 previously removed the peaks, then you were reverted by me again in April. By restoring them yet again, you're being disruptive. If you really feel they should be included, Jax, you can open a discussion on the talk page. Surely you have noticed album pages moving away from including singles chart peaks on them. They have articles for that. Linkin Park also has a discography. Why album pages need to repeat the chart peaks of the singles when they have articles and a discography for that, you have not explained. Per WP:BRD, discuss on the talk page and stop restoring them when multiple editors have disagreed about its inclusion on One More Light. Thank you. Ss112 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

White Paint

hi I saw that you removed the PROD on the above article saying that it could be redirected to the artist page. Are you proposing to do that? Domdeparis (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Bougenvilla listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bougenvilla. Since you had some involvement with the Bougenvilla redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheMagnificentist 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves

You have been warned about your disruptive page moves in the past, but you continue to abuse the page move tool to create redirects. For example, you just moved Korina Evaniuk to Evaniuk, which messes up the history of both pages, adds {{R from page move}} to the redirect (not accurate), and spams the move log. You know how to create redirects the correct way, please do so do in the future. I don't want to have to take further action. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix: Jax, you're still doing this. Why? How does this make sense to do? How many times do you need to be warned and by how many editors? Create a new redirect; do not move pages around to namespaces that have nothing to do with where you originally created it. It is unquestionably just as easy to type in a name and create a redirect than it is to move a page. You honestly appear to attempting to call editors' bluffs; "so report me for it then". It's gone far enough. Next time I see it, I will inform an admin, despite you having been warned to not do so by an admin previously. Ss112 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112: Thanks for letting me know it's still going on. I've blocked for 24hrs as they've refused to even acknowledge the issue, and have continued to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: Sorry Tavix, I didn't even know you were an admin! I had already asked Ad Orientem to look into it... I thought an admin had warned Jax previously, but I must have been talking about you! (I tagged you because I thought you were another user who was asking Jax to stop.) Ss112 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I don't mind having another pair of eyes looking into the situation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jax 0677 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

if I am being blocked for disruptive page moves, I should be blocked for 24 hours from MOVING pages, not editing them --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Such a thing is not technically possible - blocked is just blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg at FFD

The file, File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 8#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks)

The article Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This is a non-notable topic - while genealogy of the royal family, in general, may fascinate some people, there is no reason to pick this particular set of descents. There is no reason to begin with Charlemagne, there is no reason to end with Elizabeth of York, and the page itself indicates that there are many such descents, and the ones shown are just an arbitrary selection - it includes a disputed connection based on a source that is admitted, in the footnote, to be a complete fabrication, while excluding any number of alternatives that are more valid. It is poorly sourced, when sources at all. No claims to regal legitimacy are claimed via any of the clines provided. Please note, this is not an objection to the concept of royal genealogy, but to the appropriateness of this specific page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton

The article Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Completely arbitrary and mostly unreferenced collection of genealogical trivia about two different women,with no real focus - it might as well be called 'Things some editor found interesting about the ancestry of these royal brides'.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Agricolae (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the time frame for receiving a response to appealing a block?

I have been blocked, but have agreed not to move ANY Wikipedia pages at all for a period of time in lieu of a block. I appealed the block yesterday, but I have not heard back either way. What is the approximate time frame for receiving a response to the second appeal of a block? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no timescale, it's if and when an admin has the time to review an unblock request -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection)

The article Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTGENEALOGY - genealogy for its own sake. The current Brit royal family does not claim any right to rule Ireland through genealogical descent, and the selection of this arbitrary set of descents (out of many possible ones) from an arbitrary Irish monarch represents the creating editor's own preferences and not those of a secondary source. The only references are to unreliable community genealogy web site and a self-published fringe web page that from its name appears to be is promoting the fringe British Israelism mythology. The majority of the descent is entirely unreferenced, and is just genealogical trivia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)

The article Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTGENEALOGY - no coherent reason for showing the descents chosen. It could be argued that the part from ALfred to Henry and Matilda play a role in a genealogical claim to the crown of England, but the descent of the kings of Scotland from those of Anglo-Saxon England has no such rationale, and the descent of Diana from Ernest Augustus of Hanover, but not by the wife through whom the Saxon and Scottish lines are traced, is entirely without link to the theme of the page, while the descent to Philip of Swabia is entirely unlinked to the supposed topic, the current royal family. As with other similar 'Ancestry charts of the current British royal family' pages I have PRODded, this amounts to 'genealogical lines that interest an editor'.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Agricolae (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Eve to Adam

Hi, I tried to move the page to the correct title, per caps, but it said that the page could not be moved because there was a page with the title already. (which was the redirect you made earlier) Hence why I did the copy paste method. I would've moved the page if it weren't for this reason. Daerl (talk)

  • Post to enable archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting unblock discussion with Wikipedia Mediation Committee

@Andrevan:, @Mdann52: Almost two days ago, I requested that I be unblocked. I have not received any response to date. I have agreed not to move ANY pages at all for a period of time, in exchange for being unblocked. The block was enacted without any discussion at WP:AN, and if I do not move ANY pages, I cannot create double redirects by moving pages. Topic bans exist so that editors can edit the remainder of the encyclopedia while not causing disruption to other parts of the encyclopedia. I am contacting the two of you, as I am unable to edit the page for the Wikipedia Mediation Committee. Once my block is lifted, I plan to fix Template:Danaher, and create "Ron Thal discography". Thank you very much in advance for your attention to these matters. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Our policy is to mediate content disputes. Bans and blocks are outside the scope of the Mediation Committee; see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Prerequisites. If there's a question of where a page or set of pages should be moved, we could consider the request once you've been unblocked and other dispute resolution methods have been tried.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco

Speaking simply as an uninvolved editor, I could look into this and try to find a solution. But since you called me here as a mediator, I won't get involved without your express consent. You can ping me again if you wish. —Guanaco 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just commented above about double redirects. If Jax 0677 is in fact blocked for leaving double redirects, then I absolutely oppose their being blocked, because we all know that double redirects get fixed by a bot within a day or two. And there is no policy or guideline that editors must not leave a double redirect behind. This is absurd. If that is what is going on here, then I would probably be willing to open an ANI or AN discussion towards de-sysoping any administrators who have been imposing their arbitrary and invalid views with administrative actions here. However, I suspect the situation must not be simply about that. Also, if the issue is about double redirects, I don't think that is a topic which can be mediated between just a few parties; one or a few rogue editors/administrators cannot negotiate that a basic Wikipedia-wide policy/practice be changed. --doncram 21:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Doncram: Putting on my former rogue administrator hat now... I can tell you that desysopping only comes from the Arbitration Committee, and that process rarely leaves anyone happy. As far as page move tricks, they should be avoided. In the case of double redirects, bots will clean it up, but in doing so they create a "non-trivial" history for the redirect. This makes it impossible to simply revert the move if necessary; you have to move the new redirect out of article space or delete it.
My recommendation is to make an post at WP:ANI asking for the block and circumstances to be reviewed. Don't make it about rogue admins or desysopping, though, because it'll bite you in the ass. —Guanaco 22:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Guanaco:, please look into this issue. I would be ecstatic to be unblocked, even if I am unable to move ANY pages for a period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to make a post at ANI. Jax, can you give your statement here about what happened, from your perspective? I'll copy it over as part of my posting. —Guanaco 22:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Guanaco, I didn't say you were a rogue administrator; I did suggest there is probably more here than the one aspect which seems like a non-issue to me. I suggest you do not open an ANI incident about yourself as that would be a "fake" type report, when you are not seriously against yourself and when one of the main parties is blocked from participating and when I personally am not committed to going forward with an action against yourself or others.
About what in fact is going on here, Guanaco could you clarify whether this is really about leaving double redirects behind? Really, the moves themselves, the new article names, are fine and the moves are uncontroversial? --doncram 22:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply - @Doncram:, @Guanaco:, please feel free to open an ANI on my behalf. Thank you very much for attempting to resolve this issue without going to the arbitration committee.

"Over the past several months, I have indeed moved redirects in order to recreate multiple redirects. This proved to be the most expedient way to do so, albeit, it leaves a move tag on the redirect. After my block was lifted, I moved pages from a title with band name disambiguation (Axis Mundi (Decrepit Birth album)/Hey DJ (CNCO song)) to a title with only "type of work" disambiguation Axis Mundi (album)/Hey DJ (song)), which is a perfectly acceptable reason to move a Wikipedia article. After moving those two redirects to the correct titles (this is the purpose of the move button), whose pages did not yet exist, I was blocked for two weeks. In return for unblocking me, I have agreed not to move any pages for a period of time. If I do not move any pages, I cannot create a double redirect by moving a redirect. I stated this in my unblock request on June 14, 2017, but I have not heard back to date. I have been a productive editor for close to one decade, and would like to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Once I am unblocked, I plan to finish placing {{Keith Jarrett}} on articles that do not yet have his navbox, and I plan to create "Ron Thal discography", among other things.

If I do not move ANY pages AT ALL for the next two weeks, or even the next month, there is no possible way that I can create these redirects saying "{{R from page move}}". This point satisfies WP:GAB "that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Per WP:GAB, I "understand what [I am] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead", which is implied in not moving ANY pages at all for the next two weeks, and requesting ANY moves during the next two weeks at WP:RM. I am only required to satisfy one of these two points, and I am making a sincere attempt to satisfy both." --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jax 0677, don't go too far in assuming I am "on your side"; I am not clear on what has been going on here yet. Your offers to stop making moves seems to suggest that in fact you are in fact "guilty" and your moves are problematic, while my little temporary hypothesis (that your moves are fine) is perhaps to be contradicted soon. And you certainly don't want Guanaco to open an ANI incident about you if they are "against" you and you cannot participate. What on earth do you think would be accomplished, with no one agreeing with you and no one representing you.
And User:Guanaco or others, could you please clarify what the hell you prefer as an alternative, to what the bot would do in fixing the double redirect. Is the bot malfunctioning? What do you want a regular editor to do, better than what the bot does. It appears one complaint is that if a redirect is created then edited once, then the move cannot easily be reversed by a non-administrator moving the article back over the redirect. However, I don't see that as necessarily bad (because it seems there is dispute/disagreement which perhaps requires a proper wp:RM decision), and I don't see how it can be avoided by a manual edit, either. --doncram 22:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Doncram: I called myself that because I was desysopped twice, a little over ten years ago. What I mean to say is that I don't want anyone dragged through arbitration unless absolutely necessary; it's awful.

I looked through some of the moves that were done, and there are a few I'd disagree with, but I think those are irrelevant; they can be reverted and discussed. The issue I'm seeing is with actions like Special:History/Daniel_Pawlovich. There's no reason to do this. Jax, why not just create each of these pages with the content #redirect List_of_Panic!_at_the_Disco_band_members#Touring ? —Guanaco 22:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Doncram:, @Guanaco:, per WP:GAB "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" and I "understand what [I am] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead". By agreeing not to move any pages at all, I am offering a middle ground that will allow me to make constructive edits to Wikipedia without moving pages, and making any such move requests at WP:RM. The purpose of a block, is to enforce a ban, which has not even been enacted through consensus. When and if I am allowed to move pages, I will use the code that Guanaco suggested. What is done is done, and if we look to the future, this problem cannot occur if I do not move any pages, just like bad relists cannot occur if I do not relist an XFD that has at least one reply. The issue, is what I have done since my block on June 9, which was a mistake. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    The code that I used is the same that you used to create the initial redirect at Dan Pawlovich. The correct way to do this would have been to copy and paste the code into Pawlovich, Daniel J. Pawlovich, and Daniel Pawlovich. Do you see that it was unnecessary to move a page at all in that case? —Guanaco 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Guanaco:, yes, I do now, that was before my block on June 9, 2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Just quickly now, trying to avoid edit conflict: Jax 0677, it is beginning to seem to me that you are avoiding addressing the complaint, that your making moves of redirects (I thought you were moving actual articles, not merely redirects, but the Daniel Pawlovich example is) rather than simply creating redirects is causing some kind of problem (which I don't fully understand necessarily, and you probably don't either). Your promise not to make any moves at all for some period seems to be avoiding the issue, and seems to be unhelpful in that you are denying or not acknowledging that moves of redirects are bad somehow. With no acknowledgement that you have done anything wrong, when the period is over you would presumably go back to doing what is objected to. Could you please try to address the issue as Guanaco and others see it. If you really don't see anything wrong with it you should say so and Talk it out clearly, and let's sort this out and perhaps they are wrong and I can support you. If you really see that the moves of redirects are bad somehow, then please make that clear. Currently I don't believe you do see anything wrong and it also seems you are not seriously trying to understand any problem (so keeping you blocked and preventing you from doing anything else in Userspace is perhaps correct to do, perhaps permanently). --doncram 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Doncram:, to create redirects in the future, I shall use the code #redirect Page. I shall only move pages that are at the wrong title, and never move redirects. I understand the issue, and I am committed to preventing it from happening in the future. Besides, there is no way that I can make this mistake again if I do not move any pages. After June 10, I moved two redirects that were at the wrong title, which I will avoid doing ever again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix, Boing! said Zebedee, and Huon: This seems like a solid acknowledgement of the situation. Would one of you be willing to unblock if Jax at this point, with a one-month voluntary ban from moving any pages at all? —Guanaco 23:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is ready for unblocking. I am not sure what they did wrong, and their copping a guilty plea while thinking they did nothing wrong is not helpful. --doncram 23:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"After June 10, I moved two redirects that were at the wrong title, which I will avoid doing ever again." sounds false to me. What the hell are they supposed to do if there are redirects at the wrong title. They're just willing to say anything now. I'm done for now, may come back later. --doncram 23:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC):::
  • Reply - @Doncram:, please fix my talk page, which has two welcome notes. I know what I did wrong, and Guanaco sees that I do. I should have said that the redirects were at a suboptimal title, as the latter titles were better. If the redirect title is wrong, I can implement {{db-g7}} or nominate them for deletion. Again, "to create redirects in the future, I shall use the code #redirect Page. I shall only move pages that are at the wrong title, and never move redirects. I understand the issue, and I am committed to preventing it from happening in the future. Besides, there is no way that I can make this mistake again if I do not move any pages." --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    I fixed the talk page. At this point I'll leave it to the blocking/declining admins to make a decision. I'll check back later to see if they've responded. —Guanaco 23:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I generally don't review the same block twice, but the above sounds OK to me. No objections to an unblock, though I am a little worried by the unblock rationale which seems to imply that Jax 0677 was well aware of why his method of creating redirects was unsuitable, and did it that way anyway. Huon (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My only involvement was the technical decline of a request to be blocked from just page moves and I have not investigated any further than that, so I'll have to leave it to others to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been wanting to have this discussion for months now, and it finally happens when I'm away on holiday. I'm sorry to have missed it. I'm glad we've gotten past the "I won't move pages for the next two weeks" and finally gotten to the heart of the issue. While I share others' concerns, I feel comfortable unblocking at this time. Jax's acknowegment that to create redirects in the future, I shall use the code #redirect Page. I shall only move pages that are at the wrong title, and never move redirects. I understand the issue, and I am committed to preventing it from happening in the future. is sound. I strongly implore you, Jax, to commit yourself to that, and hopefully that will minimize the issue moving forward. Second, it's been 3 days now, and I think that's long enough given the problem. Unblocking now. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_16&oldid=1146711765"