User talk:Koavf/Archive053
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Koavf, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Surreal Barnstar |
| Had to do this… couldn’t resist it.
You’ve done a magnificent job on the time you’ve spent editing and protecting Wikipedia. I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
- @Surge elec: How kind. I hope the best for you as well, Surge. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Help with transclusion problem
Hi Koavf. I spent more than two hours transcluding text that was previously just copied and pasted (see Talk:Noah's Ark#Not Neutral, and bullying...). But now that I'm trying to enter the discussion of said text, I was trying to reply to someone and discovered that when I edit, only the template of the transclusion appears instead of the whole discussion, so I tried clicking "edit" next to the transclusion hatnote in order to figure out how many indent spaces I should use to reply to the editor. But to my surprise, the edit window that appears doesn't contain the transcluded text. Do you think it is a bug? Or why does that appears there? Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: Hm. Good question. I'm honestly not sure. Have you tried WP:VPT? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
For the Love of Spock.
Hello. I widened the lead section in the page. Is it all right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykiwi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Maykiwi: You don't mention anything about its reception but it's definitely stronger now. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Pruitt-Wheeler transition on Cabinet template
Hi, I started to expand on your edit to Template:Current U.S. Cabinet, but then I noticed Pruitt's resignation isn't effective until tomorrow. I commented it out for now, but it'll be ready to go for tomorrow. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
MTV Unplugged
I'm changing some category sort keys; I'm not recategorizing the albums. They were largely set to sort by artist name, but many of the albums don't have the artist name in the album or article title, which made the listing confusing. Trivialist (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Trivialist: Yes, you know what I meant. Do you have consensus for this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, but having things misalphabetized is unnecessarily confusing. Trivialist (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Trivialist: Since it has been this way for several years, I suggest posting to WT:ALBUM. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, but having things misalphabetized is unnecessarily confusing. Trivialist (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
a little help for Coreca and his History
Good morning Justin, I write to greet you and know how are you, I'm pretty good for now, working for my cultural tourism association. I am writing to ask you a favor, that is to dedicate a little of your precious time to reassume the history of my little village. I ask you to give a shot and refreshed article that is about to improve hour by hour, day after day. Thank you once again for what you did, do and do for me. a greeting from Calabria and see you soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino: Grazie for your kind words but I don't think I can help this time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello, I'm 180.182.123.205. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Muhammad Haji Ibrahim Egal have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. 180.182.123.205 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. TheSnowyMountains (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have closed this report as stale with no further action. However, this edit, with no edit summary and using rollback to revert a good-faith edit was ill-advised. It doesn't matter if it's edit warring with aggressive edit summaries from other party, if it's not vandalism, you shouldn't use rollback. I would recommend reading WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback and need to remind you that persistent incorrect use of rollback can result in the privilege being removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Citizendium main page.png
Thanks for uploading File:Citizendium main page.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Koavf, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI
[1]. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Staszek Lem: Thanks. Unfortunate but maybe it will have him come back to talk refreshed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Please also comment in Talk:Laconic phrase#Quotations. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:All Star Comics 8.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:All Star Comics 8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1984 (Van Halen album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalogue number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed
...reading your userpage here on the en:Wikipedia. You are an editor I would hope to meet one day. Thanks for all your contributions. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): I wrote it a long time ago--I've always meant to re-write it someday. Thanks for the kind words and the nudge. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Project-tagging category pages
Hi, is there any benefit in adding project tags to category pages, like here? I don't see any point in trying to track all categories (unlike articles, they don't have quality or importance ratings from which to build meaningful statistics), and my approach so far has been to add project tags only on categories that end up in formal discussions like CfD (so that they may end up in the article alerts of the relevant project/s). on the other hand, not having the project tags in the general case is helpful: when looking at a category page, I can immediately tell by the colour (blue or red) of the talk page link whether the talk page exists, and hence whether there are any previous discussions. Are there any considerations that I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: They help bring structure to the project, I guess. It's a part of the content of the encyclopedia just like articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Does that "structure" they bring have any tangible benefits? – Uanfala (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: I can't help you here as I don't know what you want me to say. There is an extensive scheme at Category:Category-Class articles, just like Category:Template-Class articles and several tens of thousands of categories and templates are tagged. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Does that "structure" they bring have any tangible benefits? – Uanfala (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- And please stop, at least for the time being. For the few minutes since I asked you, you've managed to tag several hundred more category pages. Please, this is not helpful. – Uanfala (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: I don't have a good reason to stop, so I don't plan on doing that. You have to give me something more substantial as a reason and I don't know what that is. Why would I do what you're asking? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- As I've explained above, what you're doing has no benefits, and adds clutter that gets in the way of maintenance work. Please don't do that. I strongly suggest you get communiy consensus (or ask for bot approval) before making any more such large-scale category talk page creations. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: Well, I think there is benefit and I'm not the only one. I've never seen anyone suggest that category talk pages shouldn't be tagged in the course of the past 15 years editing here and I've had several persons explicitly ask me to tag category talk pages. Can you give me an example of what maintenance work I've somehow impeded...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- For example, when I make any changes to a category, I check the talk page in case the matter has been discussed before: if the talk pages are not tagged, this simply means glancing at the talk page link to see if a category talk page exists. If the category page exists, then this shortcut isn't available and I have to click through to the page to find out. (And please, there's no need to ping every time). – Uanfala (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I can't be accountable for the method you use to check category talk pages and I don't see how this is any different from (e.g.) template talk pages. For that matter, it's entirely possible that there are many discussions not listed on the talk page, so I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to change my behavior for you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The difference with templates is that templates most often do have discussion pages, while most categories do not. This is sort of the same reason we don't create talk pages of disambiguation pages. I know that what I'm describing is a very minor benfefit, but it's still a benefit – and that stands out when compared with the absence of any visible benefit in creating the talk pages. If individual projects have asked you to create category talk pages for them, then absolutely go ahead and do that for those projects' categories. But I strongly suggest you get broader consensus before doing it beyong those projects, and I do ask you to not do that at least for language or linguistics categories. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we will not reach consensus on this but at the very least, the good news is that I'm done with language-related categories. It's unfortunate that we're at cross purposes but I appreciate you taking the time and writing respectfully. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Should I take that you're committed to getting community consensus before any more large-scale category talk page creations? – Uanfala (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- You should assume that it already exists because there are about 1,800 categories with several tens of thousands of category talk pages that are already tagged and it's an integral part of Template:WPBannerMeta, used on over 7.5M pages. No one else has ever objected to tagging category talk pages in principle that I've seen in 15 years, so I think that is tacit consensus. No, I will not be bringing it up for some community comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Mass creation of category talk pages. It might well turn out that the wider community disagrees with me, in which case I apologise for unnecessarily getting in the way of your good work. And of course, it will be appreciated if you hold off mass creating category talk page while this is in progress. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC) emphsis added 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- You have no new information to post, so please stop posting here. I have already told you that I'm not modifying my behavior from well over a decade because you have an obscure and faulty method for doing some kind of personal inventory of talk page mentions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Mass creation of category talk pages. It might well turn out that the wider community disagrees with me, in which case I apologise for unnecessarily getting in the way of your good work. And of course, it will be appreciated if you hold off mass creating category talk page while this is in progress. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC) emphsis added 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- You should assume that it already exists because there are about 1,800 categories with several tens of thousands of category talk pages that are already tagged and it's an integral part of Template:WPBannerMeta, used on over 7.5M pages. No one else has ever objected to tagging category talk pages in principle that I've seen in 15 years, so I think that is tacit consensus. No, I will not be bringing it up for some community comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Should I take that you're committed to getting community consensus before any more large-scale category talk page creations? – Uanfala (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we will not reach consensus on this but at the very least, the good news is that I'm done with language-related categories. It's unfortunate that we're at cross purposes but I appreciate you taking the time and writing respectfully. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The difference with templates is that templates most often do have discussion pages, while most categories do not. This is sort of the same reason we don't create talk pages of disambiguation pages. I know that what I'm describing is a very minor benfefit, but it's still a benefit – and that stands out when compared with the absence of any visible benefit in creating the talk pages. If individual projects have asked you to create category talk pages for them, then absolutely go ahead and do that for those projects' categories. But I strongly suggest you get broader consensus before doing it beyong those projects, and I do ask you to not do that at least for language or linguistics categories. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I can't be accountable for the method you use to check category talk pages and I don't see how this is any different from (e.g.) template talk pages. For that matter, it's entirely possible that there are many discussions not listed on the talk page, so I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to change my behavior for you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- For example, when I make any changes to a category, I check the talk page in case the matter has been discussed before: if the talk pages are not tagged, this simply means glancing at the talk page link to see if a category talk page exists. If the category page exists, then this shortcut isn't available and I have to click through to the page to find out. (And please, there's no need to ping every time). – Uanfala (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: Well, I think there is benefit and I'm not the only one. I've never seen anyone suggest that category talk pages shouldn't be tagged in the course of the past 15 years editing here and I've had several persons explicitly ask me to tag category talk pages. Can you give me an example of what maintenance work I've somehow impeded...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Jamaica talk pages
Hi Koavf. Thanks for creating those Jamaica talk pages. Usually I put a Stub tag at the bottom of airport pages when I create them, which I think automatically puts them in the Stub class for quality. If you think they are Start class, you can take the Stub tag off the article. There is also a WikiProject Aviation tag that could go on them. Thanks again. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Cptmrmcmillan: Thanks yourself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Logic
Template:WikiProject Logic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment for RfC involving genre in the infobox
Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox at Back in Black? Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be discussed first?
Shouldn't a change to such a widely used template be discussed first? I'm sure many users will disagree with this template being 100% because it affects the width of whatever is next to it and below. Already I'm seeing it push other things, like track list templates, more across the page and squash their contents as well. Ss112 05:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have an example? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that the album ratings template looked bigger and thought I was going crazy at first. I feel like the enlarged template looks jarring in articles. I think it looked better before, and I agree that a change like this should be discussed first since it affects 78,000 pages. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agreed. I don't think it's really the kind of thing that needs an example, but sure. I was looking at Slime Language when I noticed it. I'm sure there are better examples, as in, track list templates with a lot of names in it that are quite close to the ratings template that are being squashed far more than that. You're still making a change to a widely used template, and evidently I'm not the only user who has an objection. If you think the text should be increased to full size from 100% to 80%, surely undoing the edit and raising it on the talk page is the best thing to do when there are objections. Ss112 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, might be just me, but making it full-size compared to the infobox gives the impression that what it's conveying is more important than the infobox. Ss112 06:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: I think the album ratings template looks weird being bigger than the infobox and track listing templates. I think all templates should be full-size but that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, might be just me, but making it full-size compared to the infobox gives the impression that what it's conveying is more important than the infobox. Ss112 06:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agreed. I don't think it's really the kind of thing that needs an example, but sure. I was looking at Slime Language when I noticed it. I'm sure there are better examples, as in, track list templates with a lot of names in it that are quite close to the ratings template that are being squashed far more than that. You're still making a change to a widely used template, and evidently I'm not the only user who has an objection. If you think the text should be increased to full size from 100% to 80%, surely undoing the edit and raising it on the talk page is the best thing to do when there are objections. Ss112 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I can barely read the small text. Change it if you want. Thanks for your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Uh, Koavf, I would have if I could have. You're a protected template editor. Most of us aren't. Please undo your own edit. Ss112 10:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category talk:Hill stations in Cambodia
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Category talk:Hill stations in Cambodia, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way back.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way back.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I Heart You
❤️ EricEgo2012 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @EricEgo2012: <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Commercial video games with freely available source code has been nominated for discussion
Category:Commercial video games with freely available source code, 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. — Newslinger talk 21:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia; paid editing
Hi Koavf. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator.
You made this edit at Talk:On Becoming Baby Wise and on your Userpage you wrote: I have been approached off-wiki to work on the following articles and actually made some edit (not all had money or any kind of remuneration offered):
Would you please explain which of those you have done or are doing for pay or expectation of pay? Please also disclose who paid you; this is not optional, but rather mandatory. I'd like to discuss conflict of interest management in Wikipedia with you further, but first you must come into compliance with the WP:PAID policy. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: That and Bob's Watches (as noted on that talk page). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please disclose who paid you. Again this is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I hadn't made any substantive edits to that page, but I will post to its talk so that it's documented where it's appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please disclose who paid you. Again this is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, then onward...
So there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure - which should be both clear and complete at your userpage and locally at the talk page -- at the talk page, using the {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}} as appropriate and clearly disclosing what is going on)...
The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.
What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid (paid is just a special form of COI) and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
- a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the relevant and complete tag, and then submit the draft article for review so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
- b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
- (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the relevant and complete tag; and
- (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the
{{request edit}}tag to flag it for other editors to review.
By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way.
Would you please do that in the future, both for paid articles and articles where you have some other COI? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- following up - at the Baby Wise talk page, you wrote that Blake Weber is friends with the authors. A person calling themselves "Blake Weber" wrote here: " I am the President of Hawksflight & Associates, Inc and hold the world wide distribution rights for their ( Gary Ezzo & Robert Bucknam, M.D.) book and best selling series. I work closely with Gary Ezzo." If that post is the person paying you etc, would you please clarify your disclosure, so that the financial interest of the person paying you is more clear? Also please clarify if Weber is paying you or (assuming the post is accurate) the company is paying you? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I can't clarify, as I have no more details on that topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- For background, you might want to know that Blakenathanweber was editing the article a handful of times in 2014 and 2017. He called the Babywise book "my book" here and here. He called for me to be "banned from the Babywise wikipedia page" because I stopped him from putting falsehoods and peacock promotion into the article, and insisted that it represent the very strong critical response. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Koavf I have fixed the disclosure in the "connected contributor" box both for Blakenathanweber (who disclosed their financial relationship here on WP) and I removed the "friends" thing from your disclosure in the cc paid box. It would be better if you remove the statement about blake weber just being "friends" from your disclosure on the talk page, if you don't actually know that person's financial interest; as it is, it is somewhat misleading. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Koavf, would you please confirm that you will put things through prior review where you have a conflict of interest in the future? With that, we can be done with this bit. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I thought I had done my due diligence before: thanks for finishing it for me and clarifying. I can't provide any more context on payment as I don't have any--my default is to turn away someone (usually several times) but it's neither here nor there to me what business someone owns as long as he understands basic policies and guidelines. I always direct everyone to WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COI (among others) and that usually serves to do enough gatekeeping so possible payees will self-select themselves out of paid editing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I can't clarify, as I have no more details on that topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks. What I am asking with respect to the "Prior review" thing, is if you will follow the process that we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid:
- a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the relevant and complete tag, and then submit the draft article for review so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
- b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
- (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the relevant and complete tag; and
- (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the
{{request edit}}tag to flag it for other editors to review.
Will you agree to follow that in the future? Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I will definitely do AFC in the future. I may do the {{requested edit}} thing but unlikely. Now that I know there is a more comprehensive tag, I'll use that in the future--I simply wasn't aware of that one, only {{connected contributor}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for agreeing to that. Please do it on existing articles as well. I understand that you are very experienced and would not be surprised if you find this somewhat offensive and I appreciate you remaining gracious through this whole thing.
- In case it is helpful to learn from others' mistakes... At the end of last year a very experienced editor -- an admin - started editing for pay, and also chose his clients carefully. He really thought he could "handle it". However he overestimated himself and underestimated what COI does to people, which is a very human thing to do. He went from writing this initially, before his eyes opened and he could see how bad his judgement became, to this later statement. The case nonetheless went to arbcom and is here. They ended up desysopped. This was all very unhappy. I am not writing about this to you as any kind of threat (please don't take it that way), but rather as something that you might find helpful as a recent real world example of someone very experienced going down this road, and making very human mistakes. I hope you will agree to follow the procedure we ask of everyone. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: No offense taken! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I will definitely do AFC in the future. I may do the {{requested edit}} thing but unlikely. Now that I know there is a more comprehensive tag, I'll use that in the future--I simply wasn't aware of that one, only {{connected contributor}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Now that we have talked through the process, I'd like to talk about actual content. You created Bob's Watches directly as a paid editor so the page never went through prior review. What I generally do in these situations is offer a choice - we can move it to draft space and put it through WP:AFC, or I can nominate it for deletion, which will serve as a form of peer review as well. Do you have a preference? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Why would you do that again? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob's_Watches also Talk:Bob's Watches/Archives/2014. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am aware of the history of the page; I said why I would do this. Since you have not expressed a preference i will nominate for deletion; the draftifying could only happen with your consent. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Do whatever you think is best: anyone can propose anything for deletion at any time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am aware of the history of the page; I said why I would do this. Since you have not expressed a preference i will nominate for deletion; the draftifying could only happen with your consent. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Why would you do that again? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob's_Watches also Talk:Bob's Watches/Archives/2014. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain why you are directly editing On Becoming Baby Wise. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Per the above. You knew that I would edit this page and I made it explicitly clear why, how I was contacted to do so, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I laid out the procedure for paid editing above. What, exactly, is unclear about you being strongly discouraged from editing directly as a paid editor? That is a real question -- please answer it. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is unclear to you? I made the disclosure on talk, including using the template you recommended; I answered all of your questions here; I never made any attempt to hide that I had been contacted about editing the page; and I also submitted to New Page Patrol my intentions and told them that I would understand if that segment of the community didn't want me to have NPP. I additionally said that I would not do any paid editing in the future because it's a hassle. Please, tell me what is wrong here about my behavior--I already have a perspective on yours and how you've lied about what I did. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I laid out the procedure for paid editing above. What, exactly, is unclear about you being strongly discouraged from editing directly as a paid editor? That is a real question -- please answer it. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Per the above. You knew that I would edit this page and I made it explicitly clear why, how I was contacted to do so, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice of deletion discussion
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
New page reviewer
Something else -- there have been several discussions at the New Page Reviewer talk page, about people with NPR privileges also editing for pay; it is a topic of concern to the community. Would you please post at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers and disclose that you have edited for pay and that you have the NPR privilege? Disclosure is a good thing and asking others to review in light of it is a good thing. Please do consider it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: No problem. Thanks for surfacing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for posting there. People have strong feelings about this. Thanks for remaining gracious. It is hard. I've tried to summarize the whole bundle of stuff around COI and paid editing on my user page. You might find that helpful? I don't know. But thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Kamikaze (Eminem album)
Regarding this ownership-type summary, I'm sure I don't need to remind that you that neither this article nor any on Wikipedia belongs to you, so please don't act like it. It's not your way or the highway. Technically not a lot is "required" on articles so that's not much of an argument. Featuring credits are a common feature in track listings. Honestly, you're going to be up against it here if this is the way you're going already. This is an album that's just come out and you're going to be facing an avalanche of other editors who will change it (as it should be changed). Your outdated style of citations and "I don't think it should be like this" smacks of WP:OWN, and continuing to defend it to the death is not going to work because any more reverts today on that article and you've gone over WP:3RR. Even an experienced editor like you knows that. Ss112 07:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: "outdated style of citations"??? Any more reverts today on that article and you've gone over WP:3RR--good point... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you'll find defining all references at the bottom is not really done on articles anymore. Most editors making articles at this point leave them where they are first used in the article. And also, you've made about 10 reverts on the article already today...and still going. IPs adding unsourced information isn't really vandalism so I think you've gone far over 3RR at this point. I think you need to chill with the undos. The hip hop credit-adding editors will come and fix them up. Ss112 08:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: "you'll find defining all references at the bottom is not really done on articles anymore" Was this ever popular or standard? I don't think it was. Anyone is allowed to remove unsourced information at any point: it is not relevant to WP:3RR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Koavf, surely I don't need to quote WP:3RR..."An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." That's exactly what you've done. WP:3RR does not say reverting unsourced information added by others over and over is an exception. Ss112 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard." So I've done that. Unsourced info needs to go. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Plus: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Eminem is alive and so is anyone who produced this album. We can't make claims about living persons without sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let us not forget that you also reverted stylistic edits probably more than three times on the article already, which is not an exception. I think the number of reverts is in doubt here, so per 3RR, you should probably still try to avoid making any more. This article isn't a BLP so that doesn't apply. Ss112 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Actually, it does. WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" Please tell me how unsourced information about living persons in an album article is exempt. Tho your point about style is well-taken. I will revert stylistic changes to (e.g.) citation types as necessary but not in the next 22 hours. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let us not forget that you also reverted stylistic edits probably more than three times on the article already, which is not an exception. I think the number of reverts is in doubt here, so per 3RR, you should probably still try to avoid making any more. This article isn't a BLP so that doesn't apply. Ss112 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Koavf, surely I don't need to quote WP:3RR..."An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." That's exactly what you've done. WP:3RR does not say reverting unsourced information added by others over and over is an exception. Ss112 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: "you'll find defining all references at the bottom is not really done on articles anymore" Was this ever popular or standard? I don't think it was. Anyone is allowed to remove unsourced information at any point: it is not relevant to WP:3RR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you'll find defining all references at the bottom is not really done on articles anymore. Most editors making articles at this point leave them where they are first used in the article. And also, you've made about 10 reverts on the article already today...and still going. IPs adding unsourced information isn't really vandalism so I think you've gone far over 3RR at this point. I think you need to chill with the undos. The hip hop credit-adding editors will come and fix them up. Ss112 08:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to see this was on your talk page just two days ago. Again, there's no sense in keeping "your style" of personnel just because it's your preference rather than keeping it consistent with other hip hop album articles. It's unfair for you to say "well we should change the rest of those articles then". It's also clear that even though you're an experienced editor, you're still violating WP:3RR, WP:OWNERSHIP, and stretching the meaning of WP:BLP. Nice4What (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Nice4What: WP:BRD for dramatic changes. I've reverted to a compromise style in good faith. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Koavf: You just kept the columns separating them. I've decided to finally bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Hope we can further discuss it there! Nice4What (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Soundtracks to films by director
This genuinely isn't meant as an "other things exist" defense of the Soundtracks to films by director subcategories, but you may be interested in Category:Video games based on films by director and its subcategories. I think those are less justifiable than the soundtracks categories, since directors tend to be less involved in game spinoffs, but it would probably look weird if I CFD'ed them now. Trivialist (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Trivialist: Wow. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I know, right? I've meant to do something about those but never got around to it. Trivialist (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United Nations resolutions concerning Western Sahara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Occupation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For flagging several hundred Canadian articles with WikiProject Canada banners. Much obliged! PKT(alk) 00:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC) |
- @PKT: Happy to help! Thanks for you all you do as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
AT finale
Just a heads up that I was working on some AT finale stuff in my sandbox, and I went ahead and migrated it over to the page you set up. Hope this doesn't throw a wrench in anything!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Gen. Quon: Thanks for saying that. We'll have to do some pruning of the plot together but the production stuff is very helpful! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!
.svg)
Greetings!
You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.
This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.
Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!
If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
3RR
I won't leave a template because obviously you're aware of the policy but you've overstepped 3RR at Daniel Mallory Ortberg. Please revert yourself and join the efforts to reach consensus. The photo options are already linked at the top of the RfC but you can always add another diff if you think anyone will have difficulty finding your preferred version. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- The policy-based arguments are a stretch at best. This is ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
- Thanks for reverting. I appreciate the respect for policy and I do understand you see it completely differently than I do. I can at least assure you that if consensus doesn't go my way, I'll equally respect it. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: Kind of you to say and thanks for the good will on your part. Thanks for all you do to make the encyclopedia better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting. I appreciate the respect for policy and I do understand you see it completely differently than I do. I can at least assure you that if consensus doesn't go my way, I'll equally respect it. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yo
You're probably aware I got your feedback regarding Come Along With Me (Adventure Time). Thanks for the pointers and additional edits, sorry it took me so long to edit. I had some external stuff in the way. --MOC1105 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MOC1105: Thank you for your hard work. I know that it's frustrating to have it deleted or have to go back over it several times (speaking from experience) but I want to be aggressive about making sure that articles I start never contain unsourced statements, unreliable sources, or clear violations of basic formatting. Your contributions are very much appreciated and I realize this is volunteer work for us all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
hmm
the awb is just slapping unqualified stuff (ie there could be a range of xxx=y items on a lot) on top of 'boxed info' talk pages - as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Auxiliary_ships_of_the_Royal_Australian_Navy not sure it is very 'uniform' imho - but hey it takes all kinds here on wp I suppose JarrahTree 05:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: I suppose you're saying that the banner is above the shell? Yeah, a bot can just fix that easily. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not just that, doing blanket awb is good in that it makes sure there is something on the talk page - thats good.
Problem is qualifier sub projects are added on over time - I think it has taken me literally years to catch up with some of the earlier runs... JarrahTree 09:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: I can go back over them again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe - but unless you know what the extra bits are, there is not much point -
- (diff | hist) . . m Talk:Tasmanian dry sclerophyll forests; 07:47 . . (+26) . . Koavf (talk | contribs) (→top: tag) (Tag: AWB) [rollback]
- (diff | hist) . . m Talk:Tasmanian Seafarers Memorial; 07:46 . . (+26) . . Koavf (talk | contribs) (→top: tag) (Tag: AWB) [rollback]
- (diff | hist) . . m Talk:Tasmanian Government Railways X class; 07:46 . . (+26) . . Koavf (talk | contribs) (→top: tag) (Tag: AWB) [rollback]
I mean can you tell me what the extra bits are there? JarrahTree 23:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: I cannot understand your question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
To simply add a single unqualified project tag on article and category talk pages is much appreciated - as so few people do the right thing by adding the tags.
I have noticed that the single tag is mainly what you do-in over 75 per cent of the items that you tag, there is a potential extra piece of information that can assist in assessment - have a look at what I have done to the three articles noted above. JarrahTree 00:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Sorry if I didn't make this clear but I tried to say this above: I can go back and add them. E.g. here which I did manually but would be infinitely easier in a semi-automated fashion (but very difficult purely automated). I was trying to say that I am willing to go back and add subproject task forces after I am done tagging. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- No big deal anyways - I am grateful that there is tagging in the first place - many sub projects are not always obvious for a start - specially for those not au fait with australian geography and quirks - similar when I find untagged US items - I am probably doing exactly the same - as I am not always aware of the more obscure sub projects that exist in the us category tree JarrahTree 04:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Of course. As you can see from my contributions, I am doing what you requested now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- No big deal anyways - I am grateful that there is tagging in the first place - many sub projects are not always obvious for a start - specially for those not au fait with australian geography and quirks - similar when I find untagged US items - I am probably doing exactly the same - as I am not always aware of the more obscure sub projects that exist in the us category tree JarrahTree 04:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- No problems - there is a very large swathe of awb placed project tags around the larger world of wp which have simply one tag and in many cases there are possibly qualifying projects missing - but they are not always obvious, but then, in the end its an art not a science as there are many situations where intuition or local knowledge simply gets it compared to obvious tags - and then some tagging from years ago completely ignored states of australia - I regularly come across my own edits from 7 or 8 years ago where I never added victoria=y at all, or for that matter nsw=y... thanks again for your responses and your work JarrahTree 04:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject tags
You are wrongly adding WikiProject tags to articles. emijrp (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- wow your awb or something went very wrong there - whats with thing like that being added to main space??? - and that is the horrible trap that an un-named editor does with some other areas project x - and subsumes project y as part of it - that is very very very dubious, imho JarrahTree 08:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Emijrp and JarrahTree: Wow. Sorry/thanks. I am too tired. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Why am I blocked?
You gotta help me! I'm blocked on Wikivoyage and I haven't even done anything wrong! Who the heck is LibMod, what is a doppelganger, and what does any of this have to do with me? American Ride (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @American Ride: I had nothing to do with that. You may wish to ask User:AndreCarrotflower. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried, but he won't respond. Could you please go talk to him? American Ride (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:AndreCarrotflower is a trusted editor and if he blocked you for being a sockpuppet of another user, I trust his choices. If he made a mistake, you may want to talk to another admin or bureaucrat at Wikivoyage (I am not one). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please see voy:pub#What the hell?. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @AndreCarrotflower: Oh, I did. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please see voy:pub#What the hell?. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Submission a new article . Draft: Nikolay Nikolaev Todorov
Hi Justin,
Sorry to bother you, but could you please help me ?
I'm working on an article that is extremely crucial and time sensitive for the diplomatic relations between USA and the European Union.
Please try to approve this article (Draft: Nikolay Nikolaev Todorov) as soon as possible at your convenience. Considering you are one of the top people who approves the new articles.
Respectfully, User:Brassmonger. —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Brassmonger: Thanks for thinking of me but I cannot commit to this now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Brassmonger: I have addressed multiple issues with the draft article. Please review at your convenience. StrikerforceTalk 18:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Strikerforce: Thanks for that! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Brassmonger: I have addressed multiple issues with the draft article. Please review at your convenience. StrikerforceTalk 18:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Cubs = Cuba ?
Hello, Koavf! I'm puzzled as to why you tagged a redirect to the Atlanta Black Crackers and tagged a redirect to the Baltimore Elite Giants (both Negro league baseball teams) with a WikiProject Caribbean banner. Neither team was known for Cuban players or had much of a connection with Cuba. Was it because both pages have the team name as "Cubs" which may have triggered your script as a variation of "Cuba"? Either way, I really don't see the connection so I undid those. If you disagree, please ping me on the respective article talk page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Bison X: Do not at all disagree--you are in the right. Thanks a lot! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Koavf -- I found another issue with your recent AWB run. Take a look at your previous edit at Talk:German Corners, Wisconsin. For some reason, it was tagged for the German project. Any thoughts on slowing things down a bit? I suspect that you may get quite a few false positives with this one. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Dolotta: I'm going thru now--you'll see I have several self-reverts from before. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Regarding this edit you made to to Boots Riley: The text added is a highly-political characterization. As an experienced editor, you know that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Unsourced opinions aren't acceptable. Other that that, you did good work on that article, and I thank you for that. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Senator2029: There is nothing "highly-political" about this edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC request regarding Here (Alicia Keys album)
Can you comment on this RfC? It concerns whether a rather lengthy, quote-filled section should be trimmed or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Koavf, in regards to my edit on Spanish West Africa, I added (disambiguation) after Spanish Africa and Spanish North Africa to make them intentional links rather than mis-directed links, as per WP:HOWTODAB
- "To link to a disambiguation page, link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect".
Leschnei (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Leschnei: Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Any objections to my putting (disambiguation) back on? Leschnei (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Leschnei: None at all--you've made a straightforward case! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes! I reverted without realizing that you had already fixed the page. Sorry about that. Leschnei (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Leschnei: The burden was on me since I learned a better way to do things, so I should have fixed it. It's great to see us tripping up over how to make the encyclopedia better. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes! I reverted without realizing that you had already fixed the page. Sorry about that. Leschnei (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Leschnei: None at all--you've made a straightforward case! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Any objections to my putting (disambiguation) back on? Leschnei (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Koavf, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
|---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:WikiProject Angola
A tag has been placed on Template:WikiProject Angola requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Christine Blasey Ford for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Blasey Ford 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/Christine Blasey Ford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: ??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Country Winners
- Diversity winner
- High quality contributors
- Gender-gap fillers
- Page improvers
- Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
- I added Category:20th-century soundtracks and Category:21st-century soundtracks Kristijh (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Please
Please stop readding material when you don't have consensus for it. I implore you to consider the harm you do to the project when you repeatedly disregard your fellow editors and community process, most recently twice restoring a pretransition video after an RfC closed with an uninvolved editor finding "clear consensus" not to include a pretransition picture, specifically following lengthy discussion of how entry should depict the subject visually with regard to the transition. If you sincerely cannot see why this comes off as disregarding the closure, at very least my removal should have alerted you to the idea not everyone agrees with you, and per WP:ONUS it would have been worth verifying consensus rather than repeatedly restoring the material unilaterally. I have now pinged the closer to that effect.
I realize you make a large number of contributions but ultimately the encyclopedia depends on the continued involvement of many and that is only sustainable if all involved show willingness to work together rather than make unilateral decisions. Repeatedly ignoring the concerns of other editors and process for coming to consensus will drive editors off the project because it gives the impression content matters will be decided by bludgeoning and there is no reason to try to engage unless you're willing to win by attrition. Please consider the seriousness of the problem this poses the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: I think you misunderstand the onus of responsibility. The closer did not remove it and does not have a problem with it being there, so you have (willfully?) misread and superseded consensus for... what purpose? I think you are underestimating the harm you are doing with your actions. Thank you for your note and for reaching out to the closer of the RfC. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=stub|importance=low
When you create new Pennsylvania small town articles, please add {{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=stub|importance=low}} on the talk page.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dthomsen8: In 15 years, I've never made a small town Pennsylvania article but I will bear this in mind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you do update small town Pennsylvania talk pages such as Talk:Germantown, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, but you do not create them. Other users, such as User:Gilliam, create the articles. I am a WikiGnome who comes along and attempts to keep the Erie, Lehigh Valley, Pensylvania, Philadelphia and Pitttsburgh categories to have only assessed articles. I say attempts, as new articles are added without assessments, and sometimes with no talk page at all. Since I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and went to college in the Lehigh Valley, this is my turf.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dthomsen8: Nice. Glad you're here helping us. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you do update small town Pennsylvania talk pages such as Talk:Germantown, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, but you do not create them. Other users, such as User:Gilliam, create the articles. I am a WikiGnome who comes along and attempts to keep the Erie, Lehigh Valley, Pensylvania, Philadelphia and Pitttsburgh categories to have only assessed articles. I say attempts, as new articles are added without assessments, and sometimes with no talk page at all. Since I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and went to college in the Lehigh Valley, this is my turf.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Help!
Hi, could you please help me with the article for Rossendale United F.C.? Best, JV5, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Joe Vitale 5: Sorry, I don't think I have the time or the background knowledge to help here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Bani Hasan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bani Hasan 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/Bani Hasan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Account
Hello, please contact ca
wikimedia.org to recover access to your account. Thank you. — regards, Revi 11:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- And plesae ping me when you recover your access to the account, so I can re-grant the admin/crat access on outreachwiki. Thanks. — regards, Revi 08:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello Koavf, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Jackknife Lee listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jackknife Lee. Since you had some involvement with the Jackknife Lee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ElizaOscar (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Lou Ferrigno Jr. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lou Ferrigno Jr.. Since you had some involvement with the Lou Ferrigno Jr. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Opencooper (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Flag of Indianapolis.
Any reason for the revert? Looks like a power trip to me. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Ink Daddy!: Maybe my edit summary was unclear: this article is already in Category:Flags of cities in Indiana. How is that action a "power trip"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, Indiana is just ONE of FIFTY states in the Union. The reason for my adjustment is for convenience purposes, or ease of use between articles about USA civic flags. What you're maintaining is an inconvenience. Your stated reason is unsatisfactory and smacks of a power trip. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Ink Daddy!: Please let me know when the last time was you checked the number of American states. I think the idea of doing that periodically is fascinating. Also, I'm not sure how I can be on a "power trip" when I have no power over you: please keep me abreast. In the meantime, I would mostly like to know why you think this category scheme is not subject to WP:SUBCAT which I linked in my most recent edit summary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- At best, just learned something new today. At worst, I'm a real idiot. The mistake (neglecting to read WP:SUBCAT) is all mine and it's a big one of which I wholeheartedly apologize. My misguided words were fueled by an absolute disgust for certain Wikipedia contributors who are excessively proprietary with articles. Obviously that was not the case here and I let my emotions get the best of me. Will remember this blunder so as to not commit it again. Also apologize for taking up too much of your time. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Ink Daddy!: No worries--onward and upward! Thanks for helping me make a better encyclopedia. It's never a waste of time to meet a fellow Wikipedian. Have a good weekend, ID. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- At best, just learned something new today. At worst, I'm a real idiot. The mistake (neglecting to read WP:SUBCAT) is all mine and it's a big one of which I wholeheartedly apologize. My misguided words were fueled by an absolute disgust for certain Wikipedia contributors who are excessively proprietary with articles. Obviously that was not the case here and I let my emotions get the best of me. Will remember this blunder so as to not commit it again. Also apologize for taking up too much of your time. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Ink Daddy!: Please let me know when the last time was you checked the number of American states. I think the idea of doing that periodically is fascinating. Also, I'm not sure how I can be on a "power trip" when I have no power over you: please keep me abreast. In the meantime, I would mostly like to know why you think this category scheme is not subject to WP:SUBCAT which I linked in my most recent edit summary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, Indiana is just ONE of FIFTY states in the Union. The reason for my adjustment is for convenience purposes, or ease of use between articles about USA civic flags. What you're maintaining is an inconvenience. Your stated reason is unsatisfactory and smacks of a power trip. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding reversion edit reason "Why?"
Greetings and felicitations. When reverting my edit to Wikitravel your reason was "Why?" My reason is to be found in the Manual of Style at "Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space". —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @DocWatson42: Nice--thanks for educating me, Doc! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. ^_^
Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Eggsquis
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Talk:Eggsquis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sébastien Leblanc (Talk|Mail) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:Geography of Suriname
Hello. I wanted to check whether this edit was a mistake? The syntax is definitely wrong but I didn't see the need to include French Guiana at all, since it and Suriname are separate countries, albeit neighbours. I have attempted to tidy it up but I can re-add French Guiana if it was there for a reason that I wasn't aware of(?) Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jameboy: How nice of you to write. Yes, I just made a dumb mistake. Thanks for the note. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to template you - you know what edit warring is. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Yeah, agreed. You don't. You also don't need to slander me in your edit summaries or place fraudulent tags on pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Topic banned
Per consensus in this discussion, you are banned indefinitely from editing the article On Becoming Baby Wise, its talk page, and any edit anywhere which relates to the topic of the article, broadly construed, and subject to the usual exceptions. Regarding your proposal for a voluntary ban, you can of course choose not to edit anything outside the scope of this ban at your own discretion, but this is not part of the formal sanction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello, Koavf. I'd like to thank you for the enormous effort you've made over years to help advance Wikipedia. You are clearly very dedicated to improving the project. Thank you for your inspiring example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @FreeKnowledgeCreator: How kind. Thanks for the nice words, FKC and for all the work you do as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Koavf,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Charlie Brown Christmas
I replaced unsourced material with correct, sourced material. Twice you have removed it. What in the world is your problem?Vmavanti (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Vmavanti: I don't think that's true but either way, did you read my edit summary? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer plain English to acronym-speak. Is plain English OK in your neck of the woods? Your accusation of arbitrariness is puzzling. If you have seen other album pages, then you have seen Template:Track listing. That's where the form comes from. Most people prefer that format. The content comes from the liner notes of the 2012 CD which I have here next to me and which I cited. Would you like a photo of it? I'm astonished to see you delete properly sourced material. I spend much of my time fixing citations, not deleting them when they are correct. I almost never delete sourced information, even when I disagree with it or know it to be false. In those rare cases I talk to someone first, usually the head of the Wikiproject. I have entered the track information exactly as it appears in the liner notes. It's nice to put happy thoughts about Love and Peace on one's Talk page. You know what's better? Walking the walk by treating people with respect, by following the rules, by talking to people in plain English. You seem to have a history of edit warring. I understand impulsiveness and the temptation to see various pages and even subjects as "mine". This is a popular album and I was quite happy to enter accurate information for it. I think readers would appreciate that.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: Wikipedia is a project for everyone so I wouldn't presume to know your background or English skills but suffice it to say that things like, "What is your problem?" come across as rude and provocative. Again, I don't see anything sourced that I removed: all of the same personnel are still there as is the sourced liner notes you mentioned: what is sourced information that I removed? Re: the track listing template, yes, I have seen other album pages and I don't know whether {{track listing}} is more popular than plain text or not (do you have a source for this claim?) but either way, the WP:ALBUM style guide says to not edit war over an established style. Which is what you are doing: this style has been here for years and you want to change it... why? I dislike the template and I don't want to see it added to any album article. Also, it is you who are removing info from the track listing itself. Re: arbitrariness: why would bass players come before drum players? Where do trombonists fit versus trumpeters? The established style (also see the style guide) is alphabetical order, with some subgroupings based on things like being additional musicians versus the main group. What is so bad about alphabetical order and how is your method not arbitrary? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Re: instrument order, the established style for instrument order for jazz is not much different than classical: in brief, high notes to low notes. Brass, woodwind, strings, percussion. Bass always comes before drums.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC) - You don't see anything you removed that was sourced? How can that be? I just told you what I entered. Do you want me to change it back so you can look at it again? The previous material had no citations.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: The same sources are still in my revision: "Haney" and "Liner" are still there. Plus, the bonus tracks from other re-releases that you keep deleting. Please stop this. Provide some source for jazz album personnel listings being from alto to bass and for bass being higher pitched than drums which are a non-pitch instrument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop this madness. I know what I'm doing. When reverts occur, people are supposed to discuss. You refuse to discuss. You have not responded to the substance and content of my posts. You refuse to acknowledge the changes from one revision to the next when it's so obvious. You insist they are identical, but they are different. All you have to do is look at the diff in the version history. Instead you force me to explain it to you.
- @Vmavanti: The same sources are still in my revision: "Haney" and "Liner" are still there. Plus, the bonus tracks from other re-releases that you keep deleting. Please stop this. Provide some source for jazz album personnel listings being from alto to bass and for bass being higher pitched than drums which are a non-pitch instrument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Re: instrument order, the established style for instrument order for jazz is not much different than classical: in brief, high notes to low notes. Brass, woodwind, strings, percussion. Bass always comes before drums.
- @Vmavanti: Wikipedia is a project for everyone so I wouldn't presume to know your background or English skills but suffice it to say that things like, "What is your problem?" come across as rude and provocative. Again, I don't see anything sourced that I removed: all of the same personnel are still there as is the sourced liner notes you mentioned: what is sourced information that I removed? Re: the track listing template, yes, I have seen other album pages and I don't know whether {{track listing}} is more popular than plain text or not (do you have a source for this claim?) but either way, the WP:ALBUM style guide says to not edit war over an established style. Which is what you are doing: this style has been here for years and you want to change it... why? I dislike the template and I don't want to see it added to any album article. Also, it is you who are removing info from the track listing itself. Re: arbitrariness: why would bass players come before drum players? Where do trombonists fit versus trumpeters? The established style (also see the style guide) is alphabetical order, with some subgroupings based on things like being additional musicians versus the main group. What is so bad about alphabetical order and how is your method not arbitrary? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer plain English to acronym-speak. Is plain English OK in your neck of the woods? Your accusation of arbitrariness is puzzling. If you have seen other album pages, then you have seen Template:Track listing. That's where the form comes from. Most people prefer that format. The content comes from the liner notes of the 2012 CD which I have here next to me and which I cited. Would you like a photo of it? I'm astonished to see you delete properly sourced material. I spend much of my time fixing citations, not deleting them when they are correct. I almost never delete sourced information, even when I disagree with it or know it to be false. In those rare cases I talk to someone first, usually the head of the Wikiproject. I have entered the track information exactly as it appears in the liner notes. It's nice to put happy thoughts about Love and Peace on one's Talk page. You know what's better? Walking the walk by treating people with respect, by following the rules, by talking to people in plain English. You seem to have a history of edit warring. I understand impulsiveness and the temptation to see various pages and even subjects as "mine". This is a popular album and I was quite happy to enter accurate information for it. I think readers would appreciate that.
- OK. Here it is. I have the liner notes next to me. I entered material from the liner notes exactly. Not approximately, not figuratively, not as I would like reality to be. Exactly. That means there are 14 tracks, not two sides like a vinyl album. There is no CD Bonus Tracks section like it exists now. Tracks 12, 13, and 14 have an asterisk with "bonus tracks not on original LP". I don't know where the current info about "alternative takes" comes from. As far as I know, the 2012 CD is the most recent and most accurate version Fantasy has released. If you have a more recent CD with different information, please let me know. I don't know where the current information comes from because it isn't sourced. It lacks inline citations. Footnotes, you know? You don't see that? In the 2012 CD Vince Guaraldi is listed first, followed by the two bass players and underneath that the two drummers. Then there a small section each for track 13 and track 14 with the musicians for those tracks. By the way, drums actually can be tuned and they do have a pitch, but that's not the point. The point is I'm talking about a norm here that is acknowledged all over the place on Wikipedia and in the music world. Regardless, I have already given you the source, but you keep deleting it. You don't see that? This was footnote 22. I used "cite AV media notes" to cite the notes from the 2012 CD by Derrick Bang. Peace and love, man.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Here it is. I have the liner notes next to me. I entered material from the liner notes exactly. Not approximately, not figuratively, not as I would like reality to be. Exactly. That means there are 14 tracks, not two sides like a vinyl album. There is no CD Bonus Tracks section like it exists now. Tracks 12, 13, and 14 have an asterisk with "bonus tracks not on original LP". I don't know where the current info about "alternative takes" comes from. As far as I know, the 2012 CD is the most recent and most accurate version Fantasy has released. If you have a more recent CD with different information, please let me know. I don't know where the current information comes from because it isn't sourced. It lacks inline citations. Footnotes, you know? You don't see that? In the 2012 CD Vince Guaraldi is listed first, followed by the two bass players and underneath that the two drummers. Then there a small section each for track 13 and track 14 with the musicians for those tracks. By the way, drums actually can be tuned and they do have a pitch, but that's not the point. The point is I'm talking about a norm here that is acknowledged all over the place on Wikipedia and in the music world. Regardless, I have already given you the source, but you keep deleting it. You don't see that? This was footnote 22. I used "cite AV media notes" to cite the notes from the 2012 CD by Derrick Bang. Peace and love, man.
- My changes:
- * 1) Track listing
- * 2) Inline citations
- * 3) Number of tracks
- * 4) Number of bonus tracks
- * 5) Credits for tracks
- * 6) My track format consistent with Wikipedia
- * 7) Personnel
- * 8) Personnel order and instrument order consistent with Wikipedia and established format
- * 9) Production credits – for this 2012 album which I have sourced
- * 10) All of my material is sourced with inline citations. (footnote 22 applies to entire sections)
- * 11) No repeated material about the children's choir.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I need a response or I will have to drag in an admin. for help.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti::
- 1) Track listing
Don't do this. You are deleting several bonus tracks and just inserting a needless template. The established style has existed for several years, no need for this. - 2) Inline citations
None were removed. - 3) Number of tracks
Again, don't do this: you are removing tracks. - 4) Number of bonus tracks
See above. - 5) Credits for tracks
None of these are removed. - 6) My track format consistent with Wikipedia
"Consistent with Wikipedia"...? Again, don't do this. - 7) Personnel
Thanks for adding these. - 8) Personnel order and instrument order consistent with Wikipedia and established format
"Consistent with Wikipedia and established format"...? No, it's not: it's different from the established format. I have pointed you to the style guide and reminded you that alphabetical order exists. Stop changing this. - 9) Production credits – for this 2012 album which I have sourced
Great, thank you for this: it's still in the article. - 10) All of my material is sourced with inline citations. (footnote 22 applies to entire sections)
See above. - 11) No repeated material about the children's choir.
They are personnel, so they should be listed as personnel.
- 1) Track listing
- Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Vmavanti::
- I need a response or I will have to drag in an admin. for help.
- I need some indication that English is your first language. I need some proof that you understand what I've been writing. Simply repeating "don't do this" and making unfounded accusations does not constitute discussion on Wikipedia. I'm giving you another chance before I call in an admin. Would you repeat to me the argument that I'm making? Would you repeat the reasons I have made the changes so that I know you understand them? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: If you're going to be rude to me, don't post here. As I have stated several times: don't insert the track listing template, don't introduce random order for personnel, all of your sources are much appreciated and all are still retained in the article. These are simple style issues that you are spinning out of control into some dispute for no reason. Stop removing bonus tracks, stop reinserting {{track listing}}, and stop randomizing the personnel. All of these style-related issues have been stable for years and there is no compelling reason to change them. Please feel free to "bring in an admin" who can see himself the WP:ALBUM style guide, knows what WP:BRD means, and can see how you are initiating some edit war dispute for your preferred version of an article that had an established style for a decade before you came along to insert your preferred method of showing track listings and personnel. Unfortunately, {{track listing}} still exists, so feel free to add it to new articles that you create. Do not use it as an excuse to edit war over "being consistent with Wikipedia": fewer than 80,000 articles use the template out of over 200,000 album articles so it is you who are out of step with the majority practice, if anything. Your claims that double bassists are supposed to come before drummers who themselves come before trombonists in personnel listings is just sheer arbitrary preference on your part: how about we stick with alphabetical order, which is not original research, consistent with how the article has been for the past 9.5 years, and consistent with the examples given in WP:ALBUM's style guide? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are being rude because you never answer my questions. You never address what I'm saying. I'll ask again: Do you understand why I made the changes? Please repeat back to me the reasons why you think I made the changes. It is a reasonable request.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: I have already responded to you once, point-by-point. I don't know what more you want from me. You added sources (thanks!), removed unsourced info (thanks!), rearranged things to suit your personal preferences (boo!), removed tracks from the track listing (boo!), and now you want me to somehow explain to you your own state of mind. Why you think that there is some enhancement adding {{track listing}} is beyond me. How am I supposed to know why you think this is a good idea? I've explained how it's not and pointed you to relevant documentation (the style guide, WP:BRD) and you refuse to acknowledge that they exist or how they are germane or that you've even read them at all. So no, I don't understand what "consistent with Wikipedia" means or is supposed to mean and that is why I wrote "?" above. If you have some revelations, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's odd. On your User page you claim to have a degree in Philosophy and a degree in Political Science. And yet you are unfamiliar with the common debate format where a person repeats his understanding of the other person's argument before proceeding to analyze it. If you don't understand what the other person is saying, how can you possibly respond to it? Is any of the information on your User page true? Or did you make all that up? Regardless, I didn't say explain my state of my mind. Nor did I say repeat what changes I made, which you continue to get wrong anyway. I said repeat to me your understanding of my argument. Repeat to me my reasoning, which I have explained to you several times. This is a common rule in polite debate, i.e. stating the other's position before criticizing it.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: See the first line of my post stamped 23:48, 18 November 2018 and then try again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You did it again. You addressed nothing of what I said. Do you read my posts are you do look past them? You have given me no indication that you understand the reasons for my changes. You have given me no indication that you understand what I've been saying. Your first edit summary was nothing more than a couple of acronyms, sending me links to pages on the apparent assumption that I have never read them. Well, I have read them, but without something specific it's impossible for me to respond. I have given reasons for my changes repeatedly, but you refuse to engage in discussion. "See here" is not discussion.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: That is exactly correct: I did not address your argument because I told you to be polite or leave. Either option is acceptable but what isn't is coming to my talk page with the rude and derisive attitude that you have to me. I'm not going to endlessly get caught up in some weird mind game where you want me to explain your reasoning. How about you explain mine instead? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I already have, many times. There's a lot more I could say, but that would inappropriate in the context of edit revert discussions. I'm not done with this. My interest is in accuracy.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)- @Vmavanti: Okay, I have no clue what you're going on about. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I already have, many times. There's a lot more I could say, but that would inappropriate in the context of edit revert discussions. I'm not done with this. My interest is in accuracy.
- @Vmavanti: That is exactly correct: I did not address your argument because I told you to be polite or leave. Either option is acceptable but what isn't is coming to my talk page with the rude and derisive attitude that you have to me. I'm not going to endlessly get caught up in some weird mind game where you want me to explain your reasoning. How about you explain mine instead? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You did it again. You addressed nothing of what I said. Do you read my posts are you do look past them? You have given me no indication that you understand the reasons for my changes. You have given me no indication that you understand what I've been saying. Your first edit summary was nothing more than a couple of acronyms, sending me links to pages on the apparent assumption that I have never read them. Well, I have read them, but without something specific it's impossible for me to respond. I have given reasons for my changes repeatedly, but you refuse to engage in discussion. "See here" is not discussion.
- @Vmavanti: See the first line of my post stamped 23:48, 18 November 2018 and then try again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's odd. On your User page you claim to have a degree in Philosophy and a degree in Political Science. And yet you are unfamiliar with the common debate format where a person repeats his understanding of the other person's argument before proceeding to analyze it. If you don't understand what the other person is saying, how can you possibly respond to it? Is any of the information on your User page true? Or did you make all that up? Regardless, I didn't say explain my state of my mind. Nor did I say repeat what changes I made, which you continue to get wrong anyway. I said repeat to me your understanding of my argument. Repeat to me my reasoning, which I have explained to you several times. This is a common rule in polite debate, i.e. stating the other's position before criticizing it.
- @Vmavanti: I have already responded to you once, point-by-point. I don't know what more you want from me. You added sources (thanks!), removed unsourced info (thanks!), rearranged things to suit your personal preferences (boo!), removed tracks from the track listing (boo!), and now you want me to somehow explain to you your own state of mind. Why you think that there is some enhancement adding {{track listing}} is beyond me. How am I supposed to know why you think this is a good idea? I've explained how it's not and pointed you to relevant documentation (the style guide, WP:BRD) and you refuse to acknowledge that they exist or how they are germane or that you've even read them at all. So no, I don't understand what "consistent with Wikipedia" means or is supposed to mean and that is why I wrote "?" above. If you have some revelations, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are being rude because you never answer my questions. You never address what I'm saying. I'll ask again: Do you understand why I made the changes? Please repeat back to me the reasons why you think I made the changes. It is a reasonable request.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Koavf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Set categories
What is the point of Set categories? The category itself has 1,397 entries with what what looks like over 1300 of them by "albums by artist" subcategories. Yet there are over 21,000 entries in Albums by artist, so only 6% are considered sets but 93% of set categories are album categories. It seems like set categories should have hundreds of thousands of entries so I'm not sure what purpose it is serving. If it has any use at all, a bot should easily be able to populate it properly.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: 100% agreed that all of them should be included. I'll just include it in {{album category}} and that will solve the problem. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- But shouldn't then the child categories for songs, films, tv shows, cities, products, companies, musicians, scientists, etc., be set categories as well? As a tracking category, it's obviously not being utilized. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Of course. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- But shouldn't then the child categories for songs, films, tv shows, cities, products, companies, musicians, scientists, etc., be set categories as well? As a tracking category, it's obviously not being utilized. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Afghanistan
Is there any particular reason for your additions of WikiProject Afghanistan in categories about the Umayyad Caliphate? I don't see a strong connection between them. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: It included contemporary Afghanistan. E.g. Talk:Umayyad Caliphate includes {{WikiProject Syria}}. Do you think they should be removed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Syria seems more relevant, since the capital was Damascus. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: Sure but that was just an e.g.; it also has {{WikiProject Iraq}}, {{WikiProject Portugal}}, {{WikiProject Pakistan}}, etc. Skipping Afghanistan seems like a bizarre decision. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Syria seems more relevant, since the capital was Damascus. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:10,000 Maniacs media has been nominated for discussion
Category:10,000 Maniacs media, 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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Untitled Tape 3 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Tape 3. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Tape 3 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Who Killed Cock Robin? (soundtrack) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails notability requirements for albums, not significantly covered in 3rd party sources. With multiple artist contributions, no obvious redirect target.
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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
How do I use AutoWikiBrowser? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Tear (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.
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. Richhoncho (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho: I redirected. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Lotion - Tear.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lotion - Tear.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Disco
Neither Disco or Category:Disco is in R&B or funk categories. Despite elements or influences or derivations, you're not going to convince me that ABBA or the Bee Gees are R&B or funk bands anymore than someone saying the Stray Cats are a country band because rockabilly is derived from country music. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: 100% agree that they should all be consistent. I'll see if I can find a source to justify disco being a subgenre of R&B and then categorize accordingly. Feel free to remove cats as unsourced. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I found this article from the Washington Post and a blog page by Ethan Hein that try to explain the differences between funk and disco, and while there may be certain musical styles used in each and there is certainly crossover between the two, the suggestion is that they are distinct genres. I also don't think you can blanket categorize all disco as R&B because, despite its origins, it evolved into something more pop and electronic. What we do know is that all disco music is intended for dancing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Thanks for this. Yes, disco is undeniably a form of dance music. It also has a strong association with R&B broadly (if not funk narrowly). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I found this article from the Washington Post and a blog page by Ethan Hein that try to explain the differences between funk and disco, and while there may be certain musical styles used in each and there is certainly crossover between the two, the suggestion is that they are distinct genres. I also don't think you can blanket categorize all disco as R&B because, despite its origins, it evolved into something more pop and electronic. What we do know is that all disco music is intended for dancing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Weather box
Koavf, please revert your new change [2] (please restore previous version). After your new change, weather box is displayed with screen errors in resolutions of 1024x768 or less. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: Screen errors? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- The template:Weather box protrudes beyond the border of the Wikipedia window, it disturbs the order of the page. Not every person uses the FullHD monitor. Your change is unacceptable. Please restore previous version. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would do it myself, but the site is blocked, only administrators can edit it. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not all of us can read 90% text either. Which is worse: horizontal scrolling but you can read the text or illegible text that fits on your screen? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Even on pages (e.g. Aruba) that have bunching, I'm not seeing any overflow. Can you please link me to a page where you are seeing this, @Subtropical-man:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- In all articles is the same, in resolutions of 1024x768 or less is errors. This function has been working for years and it was good. There were no problems before your change. Please restore previous version. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: Horizontal scrolling isn't an "error". Please bring this up on talk; I'm reluctant to revert to something that I cannot read for resolutions that make up a very small minority of desktop users. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- [3][4] You have the right to your own opinion, however this template uses 20,000 pages and you have no right to decide without consensus. Your change makes it difficult to view pages for (only) few percent of users but you are insolent that you (one user) do it yourself without any discussions and consensus. Please restore previous version!!! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: Please bring this up on talk, as I said above. My talk page is not the best place to get consensus about this template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- You did not understand. You want to make a new change in weather box - so - you have to get a consensus for the new change. When is a consensus for the new change (if it will be), then you can make a change, after consensus, not before consensus. Simply. Until then, please restore previous version, immediately! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Try now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- [5] No, no changes, still the same problem. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Try now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- You did not understand. You want to make a new change in weather box - so - you have to get a consensus for the new change. When is a consensus for the new change (if it will be), then you can make a change, after consensus, not before consensus. Simply. Until then, please restore previous version, immediately! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: Please bring this up on talk, as I said above. My talk page is not the best place to get consensus about this template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- [3][4] You have the right to your own opinion, however this template uses 20,000 pages and you have no right to decide without consensus. Your change makes it difficult to view pages for (only) few percent of users but you are insolent that you (one user) do it yourself without any discussions and consensus. Please restore previous version!!! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: Horizontal scrolling isn't an "error". Please bring this up on talk; I'm reluctant to revert to something that I cannot read for resolutions that make up a very small minority of desktop users. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- In all articles is the same, in resolutions of 1024x768 or less is errors. This function has been working for years and it was good. There were no problems before your change. Please restore previous version. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, this change also did not improve anything. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you clearing your cache? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I even used three browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome). Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you clearing your cache? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Bo Fo Sho
Why are you rapidly changing "Bo Fo Sho" to "Bo fo Sho" without explanation? This isn't how the EP is capitalised—take a look at it on Spotify or Amazon. You need to use edit summaries and/or leave a note somewhere when you're making non-obvious changes. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CAPS. "Fo" is short for "for" which would not be capitalized. How things are capitalized by online stores doesn't really determine anything about our manual of style. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I assume you mean MOS:TITLECAPS rather than the dab page you point to, but okay. I'm confused as to why you left nine instances of "Bo Fo Sho" unchanged on Bo fo Sho and Bo Burnham, but I've changed those; let me know if there's a reason you didn't alter them. Next time, please indicate the policy you are invoking in your edit summary when making non-obvious grammatical changes. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- There are only 24 hours in a day. I thought it was obvious. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I've made 10K edits and don't recall ever coming across that guideline. I think that makes it non-obvious. If time is a concern for you, make fewer high-quality edits. By spending 20 seconds on an edit summary, you help editors like me learn to avoid making these mistakes in the first place. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The edit summary "caps" and then looking at the titles seemed obvious to me. Maybe not to you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- "caps" doesn't give any information. Someone viewing the move can already see you've changed the capitalisation. I have the same problem with your Make Happy edit. Your reasoning is fine but it needs to be given. Having 2 million edits doesn't give you an exemption from common courtesy. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nor does having 10,000. Please stop talking down to me and being rude. If you can't be polite, don't post to my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- "caps" doesn't give any information. Someone viewing the move can already see you've changed the capitalisation. I have the same problem with your Make Happy edit. Your reasoning is fine but it needs to be given. Having 2 million edits doesn't give you an exemption from common courtesy. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The edit summary "caps" and then looking at the titles seemed obvious to me. Maybe not to you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I've made 10K edits and don't recall ever coming across that guideline. I think that makes it non-obvious. If time is a concern for you, make fewer high-quality edits. By spending 20 seconds on an edit summary, you help editors like me learn to avoid making these mistakes in the first place. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- There are only 24 hours in a day. I thought it was obvious. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I assume you mean MOS:TITLECAPS rather than the dab page you point to, but okay. I'm confused as to why you left nine instances of "Bo Fo Sho" unchanged on Bo fo Sho and Bo Burnham, but I've changed those; let me know if there's a reason you didn't alter them. Next time, please indicate the policy you are invoking in your edit summary when making non-obvious grammatical changes. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Who Killed Cock Robin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Who Killed Cock Robin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Michael Carey (boxer)
Hi Koavf. I've put a prod on this article, as it appears that he did not compete at the Olympics, per this. If you can find something else to help establish notability, then please update the article and remove the tag. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: But we have a reliable source saying that he did. Some other source that just doesn't say he did isn't enough of a reason to delete the article per the guideline that you cited. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- But the source contradicts itself:
"Arthur’s coach is David Carey, the founder of the Alaska Boxing Academy. He moves between the beginners and the “Set….box! No playing patty cake, let’s go. Work the jab,” Carey said, moving between the experienced and new boxers, running them through drills and offering advice. Carey was a member of the U.S. Olympic team that competed in the 2008 Games." And another reliable source shows no-one of either name ever competing at the Olympics. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: To be clear, I'm 100% willing to believe that this source is incorrect--that definitely happens--just that I don't think this is strong enough for a proposed deletion with no discussion. The guideline is "if someone competed in the Olympics, he's notable" and I have a reliable source saying, "he competed in the Olympics". He may not have but other sources not saying that he didn't doesn't prove that he didn't. Other concerns about sourcing and notability are totally valid but just worthy of discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- "...and I have a reliable source ..." But that does not seem to be the case at all. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I've asked on the deletion discussion why you think the source is unreliable--it's probably best to keep discussion there. Happy to discuss of course and happy to accept consensus but I think this merits discussion at once place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: To be clear, I'm 100% willing to believe that this source is incorrect--that definitely happens--just that I don't think this is strong enough for a proposed deletion with no discussion. The guideline is "if someone competed in the Olympics, he's notable" and I have a reliable source saying, "he competed in the Olympics". He may not have but other sources not saying that he didn't doesn't prove that he didn't. Other concerns about sourcing and notability are totally valid but just worthy of discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not 2019 yet
Special:Diff/871822846. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding Tiny Mix Tapes should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
List of songs recoeded by U2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of songs recoeded by U2. Since you had some involvement with the List of songs recoeded by U2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:WikiProject Volleyball
Please read WP:USERNOCAT, and stop placing the Wikipedia administration cat Category:WikiProject Volleyball in Category:Volleyball.
The WikiProject is not encyclopedic content. Categorising it as such places admin pages in content categories, and places Category:WikiProject Volleyball participants under content pages, contrary to WP:USERNOCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: When would WP:SORTKEY #11 be germane, then? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- It might apply for placing WikiProjects in topic Wikipedia administration categories, e.g. Category:Sports-related WikiProjects in Category:Sports and games Wikipedia administration.
- But whatever its intent, it does not justify categorising Wikipedia administration pages as enyclopedic content.
- Please can you confirm that you do actually understand the difference between Wikipedia administration pages and enyclopedic content? Sorry to ask, but so far i see no sign of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: It's never surprising but always disappointing to see you talk down to other users, especially when you can't be bothered to look two edits back in my contributions. And no, Category:Sports-related WikiProjects does not have 76 categories sorted with an omega. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Justin, do stop being silly.
- I shouldn't have to peruse your contribs history to find to whether you actually understand the concept which were discussing, and you should by now know better than to ask anyone to do so. Your responses here gave no sign at all of acknowledging or understanding the central point I was making.
- The is the same go-find-it game which you repeatedly play at XFD, omitting to post the crucial info which triggered you to make nomination, and instead leaving other editors to go find it or infer it.
- So
Category:Sports-related WikiProjects does not have 76 categories sorted with an omega
. Big deal. How on earth does that justify placing Wikipedia administration pages in enyclopedic content categories?????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: Brown, please feel free to take your own advice: surely you have seen WikiProject categories sorted with omegas before and surely you know that the function of omega sortkeys isn't to sort several WikiProjects within one category. It's intended to be when you have "Cateory:foo" and then underneath that, you have "Book:foo" categorized with beta, "WikiProject:foo" categorized with omega, templates with tau, etc. It looks like you're not a big fan of WP:BRD and want to edit war over this, so as you can see, I've posted to WT:CAT to get some input and clarification. Maybe the whole sort-WikiProjects-with-omega thing should be removed but until then, that is evidently what the standard for sortkeys is (and also what I have seen in practice many times). Re: "the same go-find-it game which you repeatedly play at XFD" please provide an example of what you mean. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, I have not seen WikiProjects sorted with Omega keys before. It is very rare to find WikiProjects miscategorised as content, and when I find them I remove them,
- It is quite bizarre to take a note on sortkeys as justification for placing admin categories under content, when a) there other uses for the sortkey, and b) the two trees are clearly designed to be separate.
- I am currently cleaning up Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories, and using Petscan to find user pages categorised under content categories. These occasional miscategorisatios of projects cause massive pollution of the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- PS instead of playing games about sortkey guidance, please would address the substantive point:
- Do you agree that WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content?
- You have dodged that question so far, and a clear response would clarify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Pardon me: I made an unjustified assumption considering all of the time you have spent working on our categories. I don't know that WP:SORTKEY is "bizarre" as its plain meaning makes sense to me and you haven't offered any alternative understanding that makes sense. Again, what do you think #11 is supposed to mean? When would it be used? I can only speak to what I've seen and that is the example I gave above. Feel free to answer my earlier request for a citation or stop putting me down. As usual, you take an opportunity to have a pleasant conversation and turn it into a chance to be rude and smear someone else. (Here comes the "Don't be such a pansy!" comments I'm used to when dealing with your provocative and needless bullying.) Edit conflict: I don't think it's clear because we have conflicting documentation at the sort key guideline. I have removed administrative categories from content pages and vice versa many times before (e.g. userspace drafts in standard categories) but I have also applied this guideline as I understand it and as I have seen other users do the same for the past decade or so. I'm not sure what magic words you want me to say but 1.) in practice, these category schemes sometimes overlap (hence your edits in the first place) and 2.) altho they generally shouldn't, it looks like there is a justifiable time when the would cross over. Again, it appears that you're too busy to get any consensus on this topic, so it looks like you're going to do whatever you feel like no matter what I say, so I'm not sure what the point of this is. Especially since you think I'm obliged to owe you answers to your questions when you freely ignore mine. Standard BHG territory again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Justin, if you want to have a productive discussion, then please answer the question to clarify your view on the core topic, instead of wasting time with obfuscation.
- I don't have time for your game-playing of dodging around the central point, and then diverting the discussion when pressed on it. If you clarify your view on that, we can perhaps figure out the rest.
- So ... Do you agree that WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I've answered every question you've asked me to the best of my ability but it's not BHG Certified Good Enough™, I guess. I sincerely have no clue what isn't clear about my views, as I've explained them at length. This is a problem that I seem to have with you over and over again not because I'm willfully obscure but because you're willfully ignorant. Note that we are using the same guideline which evidently has contradictory information: do you agree on that? And no, WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're still at it.
- For goodness sake, will you please just answer that one simple question? Without all the tangents.
- We can move on to other points, but if we don't clarify that fundamental, we will go round in circles on the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I apologize if my 89-word answer was too much before. "No, WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Halelujah. Turns out that you had answered it before, but buried it at the end of a tangential wall of text, without even putting it on a new line to indicate a separate para.
- See, it wasn't hard to just answer a simple question, was it? So why play this game of hiding your answer at the end of a paragraph rather than putting it at the beginning, and then continuing to the other points you want to make? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Yes, I'll never again assume that you will read four sentences in direct reference to what you wrote: it's clearly far too much for you. Now, onto the questions that I have asked you multiple times and you have ignored? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I apologize if my 89-word answer was too much before. "No, WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're still at it.
- @BrownHairedGirl: I've answered every question you've asked me to the best of my ability but it's not BHG Certified Good Enough™, I guess. I sincerely have no clue what isn't clear about my views, as I've explained them at length. This is a problem that I seem to have with you over and over again not because I'm willfully obscure but because you're willfully ignorant. Note that we are using the same guideline which evidently has contradictory information: do you agree on that? And no, WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Brown, please feel free to take your own advice: surely you have seen WikiProject categories sorted with omegas before and surely you know that the function of omega sortkeys isn't to sort several WikiProjects within one category. It's intended to be when you have "Cateory:foo" and then underneath that, you have "Book:foo" categorized with beta, "WikiProject:foo" categorized with omega, templates with tau, etc. It looks like you're not a big fan of WP:BRD and want to edit war over this, so as you can see, I've posted to WT:CAT to get some input and clarification. Maybe the whole sort-WikiProjects-with-omega thing should be removed but until then, that is evidently what the standard for sortkeys is (and also what I have seen in practice many times). Re: "the same go-find-it game which you repeatedly play at XFD" please provide an example of what you mean. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: It's never surprising but always disappointing to see you talk down to other users, especially when you can't be bothered to look two edits back in my contributions. And no, Category:Sports-related WikiProjects does not have 76 categories sorted with an omega. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
![[3]](https://iv.pl/images/35649106557818102282.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://iv.pl/images/52882715826871843435.jpg){kind=link}
@BrownHairedGirl: And now a separate question so as to not be accused of tangents: "Note that we are using the same guideline which evidently has contradictory information: do you agree on that?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree. As noted above, there are other situations where the sort key could be used.
- Look, this isn't complicated. We agree that WikiProjects are not encyclopedic content.
- So logically, don't categorise them as if they were. Use see-also links instead if you want to allow readers to navigate between the two:
- On Category:WikiProject Volleyball, put
{{Category see also|Volleyball}} - On Category:Volleyball, put
{{Category see also|WikiProject Volleyball}}
- On Category:WikiProject Volleyball, put
- Simple. Navigation is available, and nothing is miscategorised.
- If that isn't clear enough, write a longer explanation with each link, or we could even make a template to cross-link. Gimme a few mo and I will make one. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Okay, thanks again. And please--maybe you genuinely don't understand how to talk to another person--don't post anything rude to my talk page ever again. If you do, I'll just stop talking to you and tell you to go elsewhere. I'm happy to have a conversation with you as long as you're a decent person but you frequently just refuse to be one, so I'm at a loss for what to do. I don't work on a free knowledge encyclopedia to be berated by strangers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Justin, I'm sorry, but I don't have this problem with other editors. Only with you. And I see that you have this prob with other editors
- The difficulty is that you don't communicate clearly, and don't realise that you lack clarity. You repeatedly assume that others will infer your intentions or understanding, when the other person may see several possible meanings; you then dismiss their response as a sign of their ignorance rather than their perception of ambiguity, and you get offended when asked to clarify. You don't seem to accept that other people speed-read, and that they rely on salient point being made clear rather than buried.
- e.g. I was looking for an answer to the question which I had made clear that I believed was central, and was not going to engage on other points until we understood each other's starting points. By the time you made your whole-para response up above, I was already feeling that I was being led on a merry dance, so bu the time I was into the second sentence which still didn't address the issue, I skipped. The old TLDR problem.
- Anyway, the template is now working as a prototype: {{WikiProjectContentCatsCrossLink}}, which needs no parameters.
- Stick it on Category:Foo, and it creates a cross-link to Category:WikiProject Foo.
- Stick it on Category:WikiProject Foo, and it creates a cross-link to Category:Foo.
- (I am also working on making it accept a parameter, so that e.g. Category:Fooian you could place
{{WikiProjectContentCatsCrossLink|Foo}}to link to Category:WikiProject Foo, but I haven't tested it yet) - The output is only a first draft. It may be too verbose, or not verbose enough, or need difft presentation. Please lemme know what you think of the idea, and of the output. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: No, you are just wrong. I am offended when someone talks down to me ("Look, this isn't complicated", "I don't have time for your game-playing", etc.) If you only have this problem with me, then I guess you are deliberately targeting me. Unfortunate but there's nothing I can do about that or your deliberate misreadings of what I write. Things like, "I answer all your questions and you just ignore mine" are not hard to parse and it's pretty clear that you don't extend the same respect to me that I do to you (until you show me condescension or rudeness, at which point, I act out of having been slighted). If you want a question answered, then ask it--I always extend you that courtesy even if you don't do the same to me. As far as your solution, I don't really care (tho it seems fine and well-thought-out: you are an intelligent and hard-working user--I don't want to devalue your work); what matters to me is that we're consistent with whatever is the solution and the guideline that I mentioned above should be clarified. I'm not the only one who misunderstands this (if it is a misunderstanding at all). So I'm concerned with you unilaterally assuming that your interpretation is correct when it's actually not obvious that it is and you feel like it's okay to edit-war over it since you are clearly correct in your own mind and categorization schemes which have been around for the better part of a decade and therefore have some consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- When I did ask you a question your response was that I should peruse your contribs!
- That's the sort of thing which happens time and again with you, which is why I conclude that you are playing games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: "can you confirm that you do actually understand the difference between Wikipedia administration pages and enyclopedic content? Sorry to ask, but so far i see no sign of it." = Condescension + no attempt to actually see if I know the difference. Do you honestly think this is how you are supposed to talk to someone else? Seriously, it's shocking to me. Ask a rude question, get a rude answer, B. You're being flagrantly rude to someone who's been here 15 years. God knows I'm not infallible but you can't find a nice way to ask a question like this (which didn't need to be asked in the first place)? You said you you haven't seen any sign of it but then when I point out how I had immediately made an edit that clearly shows signs of it, you're shocked. This is a perfect microcosm of why I dread talking to you and every time I know that you're going to post something, no matter how mundane and quotidian, it's going to include some snarky rudeness that's even self-contradictory ("I didn't find a sign of something but I also didn't bother to look and then I'm offended when you point it out."). I could make the same low-effort, snarky comments to you. "Don't you know how to make a link to a category?" "Don't you know how to make an intelligible edit summary?" but I don't. You make it a point to go for the jugular on my talk page. I have no clue how you talk to others but if you're an admin and you act like this regularly, I don't know how you've kept the privileges (you got them a long time ago, so that probably helps). Your work is always fine but your demeanor is frequently abrasive, even when it starts off as helpful. Yeah, maybe I'm the only who says this to you but it's either because 1.) no one wants to deal with fighting with you about how rude you are or 2.) you are exclusively rude to me. I don't have the time or energy to figure out which one it is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Justin, after your reverts of my recats, that came at about round of our exchanges, when you still hadn't in an way acknowledged my simple point.
- You showed zero sign of understanding it. That's why I asked.
- In hindsight I can see that you had concluded that because SORTCAT mentioned use of sortkeys, it therefore must allow categorisation in that way in content categories. To me that's quite a leap; it's not how I interpret that section.
- This typical of your style of communication. You provide insufficient info to explain your thinking to the other person, because you assume that they will approach the question from the same angle as you and reach the same conclusions. That forces the other person to play guessing games, and I find that extraordinarily rude.
- That's why I asked you bluntly whether you understood what I was talking about: because you have zero explicit acknowledgement that you did understand.
- You complain that my question to you was rude and condescending, but you seem utterly blind to your deep rudeness in not explaining yourself clearly and not explicitly addressing the point made.
- I respond like that only when I encounter that sort of conduct. Sadly, it's something you do repeatedly. I eventually got exasperated with it at CFD, where you would make strings of "delete" nominations which looked like they should have been merges, and when challenged on it complained that I should have reckoned that was what you meant. You did the same thing repeatedly at CFDS, not citing which convention you believed should be followed to support your proposed change, and then complaining that the admins who review noms should have done their own research to figure out why you proposed it before assessing whether that was a good idea. That is extremely rude: it's a waste of other people's time and energy, requiring multiple other people to repeat your research process when you could have spent a few seconds typing it out.
- You still display the same mindset here where you complain about how your failure to communicate your thoughts produces a response you don't like. The solution is in your own hands: stop this passive aggressive game of making others research to find out what you mean.
- Here's an example. Go back to the start of this discussion, and consider your reply
When would WP:SORTKEY #11 be germane, then?
. Think how massively more helpful it would have been in clarifying your position if you had replied "yes, it is an admin cat in a content cat, but I think that is acceptable per WP:SORTKEY". What's that, twelve more words? - You probably find it harsh rude to be accused of passive aggression. But that's what it is, and you can change it if you want to. Then you'll see how responses to you wil change. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for taking the time to respond. What you call a "passive-aggressive game" I think is just flat out incorrect. Please assume good faith. Your point about CfDs is fair: note also how I changed my behavior in lite of a simple and reasonable request. This is why when I asked for a citation before you didn't provide one: because you don't have one from the past few years, only a grudge at some perceived problem from several years ago (note also that I never had this problem with anyone else at CfD, only you). I never realized that you thought my CfD nominations were rude, only malformed. Obviously, those are two different things. Now that I understand you better, maybe we can communicate better. I make it a point to try to be very clear about how I communicate here and I don't get into weird mind-games with other users and I have no problem disagreeing with other users and hashing out the best approach. I don't have a problem with consensus. If you think I've got some fundamental problem collaborating, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: "can you confirm that you do actually understand the difference between Wikipedia administration pages and enyclopedic content? Sorry to ask, but so far i see no sign of it." = Condescension + no attempt to actually see if I know the difference. Do you honestly think this is how you are supposed to talk to someone else? Seriously, it's shocking to me. Ask a rude question, get a rude answer, B. You're being flagrantly rude to someone who's been here 15 years. God knows I'm not infallible but you can't find a nice way to ask a question like this (which didn't need to be asked in the first place)? You said you you haven't seen any sign of it but then when I point out how I had immediately made an edit that clearly shows signs of it, you're shocked. This is a perfect microcosm of why I dread talking to you and every time I know that you're going to post something, no matter how mundane and quotidian, it's going to include some snarky rudeness that's even self-contradictory ("I didn't find a sign of something but I also didn't bother to look and then I'm offended when you point it out."). I could make the same low-effort, snarky comments to you. "Don't you know how to make a link to a category?" "Don't you know how to make an intelligible edit summary?" but I don't. You make it a point to go for the jugular on my talk page. I have no clue how you talk to others but if you're an admin and you act like this regularly, I don't know how you've kept the privileges (you got them a long time ago, so that probably helps). Your work is always fine but your demeanor is frequently abrasive, even when it starts off as helpful. Yeah, maybe I'm the only who says this to you but it's either because 1.) no one wants to deal with fighting with you about how rude you are or 2.) you are exclusively rude to me. I don't have the time or energy to figure out which one it is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: No, you are just wrong. I am offended when someone talks down to me ("Look, this isn't complicated", "I don't have time for your game-playing", etc.) If you only have this problem with me, then I guess you are deliberately targeting me. Unfortunate but there's nothing I can do about that or your deliberate misreadings of what I write. Things like, "I answer all your questions and you just ignore mine" are not hard to parse and it's pretty clear that you don't extend the same respect to me that I do to you (until you show me condescension or rudeness, at which point, I act out of having been slighted). If you want a question answered, then ask it--I always extend you that courtesy even if you don't do the same to me. As far as your solution, I don't really care (tho it seems fine and well-thought-out: you are an intelligent and hard-working user--I don't want to devalue your work); what matters to me is that we're consistent with whatever is the solution and the guideline that I mentioned above should be clarified. I'm not the only one who misunderstands this (if it is a misunderstanding at all). So I'm concerned with you unilaterally assuming that your interpretation is correct when it's actually not obvious that it is and you feel like it's okay to edit-war over it since you are clearly correct in your own mind and categorization schemes which have been around for the better part of a decade and therefore have some consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Justin, I'm sorry, but I don't have this problem with other editors. Only with you.
- @BrownHairedGirl: Okay, thanks again. And please--maybe you genuinely don't understand how to talk to another person--don't post anything rude to my talk page ever again. If you do, I'll just stop talking to you and tell you to go elsewhere. I'm happy to have a conversation with you as long as you're a decent person but you frequently just refuse to be one, so I'm at a loss for what to do. I don't work on a free knowledge encyclopedia to be berated by strangers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried using it at Category:Albums but there's a display issue. I can't seem to figure it out myself. Thanks again for making this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ooops! My bad, Display issue fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I think the template is a good idea. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello Koavf,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Koavf/Template:Wiki
Good day! Whatever happened to this cool template? I stole it from your userpage a while ago and really love it. However, I noticed that it's being rendered all black and weird on user pages. When you open the template page, it looks just fine. Any ideas as to what might be causing this? Nataev talk 11:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nataev: Fixed. You're right: that black is ugly and I have no idea where that came from... I don't remember it looking that way before, that's for sure. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| "the anarchistic approach to editing is its strongest feature" | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 1806 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Wow, you learn something new every day. Thanks for the trip down memory lane to a new fact that I didn't know... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
|
| Methinks I see an heavenly Host Of angels on the wing; Methinks I hear their cheerful notes, So merrily they sing. Let all your fears be banished hence, Glad tidings I proclaim; For there's a Savior born today And Jesus is his name. Lay down your crooks and quit your flocks, To Bethlehem repair; And let your wandering steps be squared By yonder shining star. Seek not in courts or palaces; Nor royal curtains draw; But search the stable, See your God extended on the straw. Then learn from hence, ye rural swains, The meekness of your God, Who left the boundless realms of joy, To ransom you with blood. The master of the inn refused A more commodious place; Ungenerous soul of savage mold And destitute of grace. - from William Billings, "Shiloh" |
Happy editing into 2019 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: And a very merry Christmas and happy new year to you, my fellow millionaire! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please undo this edit?
I'm quite sure changing the size of text in widely-used templates would require consensus as it's a contentious thing, considering, for one, that discography tables use this and you've now probably enlarged quite a few of the columns by making it full size, so can you please undo this edit? Ss112 07:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Are there any instances where this has caused a problem with display? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't checked (m)any discographies to see, but I presume there has been widening of columns, and I can't imagine all editors would agree with this change. I was under the impression basically any changes to widely used templates should be proposed on the talk page—Wikipedia itself tells editors to be mindful of this. I might be mistaken, but I also seem to recall there being a note on a guideline relating to template editing that if an editor who cannot edit templates disagrees and cannot revert you themselves, you should undo your change..? Ss112 10:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you probably removed the small text to make it "easier" to read, but if nobody has complained about it until now (and there are plenty of editors who are very militant about accessibility on Wikipedia, so I think if there were issues about its appearance they would have been raised by now), then I think it's unnecessary to change. Ss112 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You probably mean Wikipedia:Template_editor#Changes_that_require_at_least_some_discussion,_or_at_least_several_days_passing_with_no_one_commenting_on_your_proposal which mentions "The addition of new parameters, if they'll significantly change the template's usage or display." So that's why I'm asking if you're seeing some change in display that is making anything worse (unexpected line breaks, horizontal scrolling, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course not, because (you know that) all you did was remove the code that made it smaller. I'm just saying I anticipate disagreements, and that it affects appearance where tables are trying to be kept small (hence why I presume the template was small text)—especially in cases where the template is being used to write something else. Ss112 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Of course not"? If it obviously didn't cause any problems then... Thanks for the heads-up about what you think are irrelevant complaints? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're speaking as if it had to break the formatting before someone can undo your edit when you know your edit didn't break anything, so that's why I said "of course not". Look, if you don't undo your edit, I will ask somebody to revert you, and WP:BRD then directly applies. I asked you to simply undo your own edit because it affects a widely used template and wasn't discussed. Someone (me, in this instance) has an issue and provided a reason, so I thought you would see that BRD applies even though I can't directly revert you myself, and that you would see this. I guess not. If you then edit war like you did with random IPs at Kamikaze, where you made at least 10 reverts in multiple sessions, I will inform an administrator, so please don't. Thanks. Ss112 14:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You came here with no particular complaint referencing no particular guideline or policy and I tried to find the one that I think you most have in mind which is that if a change to a template "significantly change the template's usage or display" to seek consensus or revert. You have no instances where this happened (and I have also searched myself) so what is the problem? I am supposed to revert myself whenever anyone comes to my talk page and says, "The edit you made didn't negatively effect anything, I don't have any policy or guideline in mind that you're violating and I don't even personally have any problem with it but maybe someone else might"? How would anything ever get done here? I have investigated if the edit "significantly change the template's usage or display" and didn't see that it did (except made it so that I could read the text without scrunching my eyes or using custom CSS). By definition, 100%-sized text must be readable... So I don't see the problem here. If you can show me any problems with display or actual policy that was broken or any real-life user whose life is negatively impacted, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're asking me to revert myself to make things harder for me to read because you suspect that someone else may hypothetically object. If I'm misreading this, please correct me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe edits need to break templates before they can be reverted. The template has already been restored to the way it was. Your reasoning just sounds like your preference for not having to "scrunch your eyes". I assume if others found discomfort in the way the template's text was presented, as I said above, they would have said something by now, so it doesn't seem to be a problem that needed to be "fixed". Anyway, I'm done speaking about this template now. Contentious changes (i.e. when someone voices disapproval) to widely used templates should be presented on the talk page. Ss112 02:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Sure, and again, all you wrote was "I think there might be a rule somewhere (but I don't know what it is) that someone else (not me) would use to find some reason to object, so you should probably revert yourself even tho nothing bad happened" which is not a useful guide for behavior. I don't understand why you bothered to post to my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- ...Because I can't edit templates? That was already made clear. This is the last time I'm going to reiterate, but I, not just others that haven't come forward yet, also personally objected to the change and thought that you may revert yourself because I asked and referred to an existing guideline. But it's also clear from your paraphrasing that you've intentionally misunderstood what my point was, so obviously I was mistaken to ask. No need to keep tagging me, I'm done. Ss112 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Please re-read the thread where you do not refer to any particular rule, guideline, or policy and leave it up to me to maybe kind of find it, I guess and where I have repeatedly asked you if you have any examples of how this has caused a problem and you don't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't specifically ask you to go find the appropriate guideline. As for examples, yes, because I haven't looked around to see. My problem was that it would widen columns where editors have specifically worked to not have them wide, which is obviously not a problem to you. Whatever. Now please stop tagging me and I'll stop replying. Thank you. Ss112 04:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Feel free to not respond but please note that no editors should ever be editing anything on Wikipedia or the Web in general assuming pixel-perfect column widths. If something just barely fits with 90% sized font, then it is poor design when it looks bad at 100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh my God, truly, I asked you to stop tagging me. Don't be annoying. I'm not one of them and I don't care. 04:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- You can always not respond to any message. If you don't care, don't post in the first place. I guess you think wasting my time is funny but why waste your own...? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh my God, truly, I asked you to stop tagging me. Don't be annoying. I'm not one of them and I don't care. 04:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Feel free to not respond but please note that no editors should ever be editing anything on Wikipedia or the Web in general assuming pixel-perfect column widths. If something just barely fits with 90% sized font, then it is poor design when it looks bad at 100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't specifically ask you to go find the appropriate guideline. As for examples, yes, because I haven't looked around to see. My problem was that it would widen columns where editors have specifically worked to not have them wide, which is obviously not a problem to you. Whatever. Now please stop tagging me and I'll stop replying. Thank you. Ss112 04:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Please re-read the thread where you do not refer to any particular rule, guideline, or policy and leave it up to me to maybe kind of find it, I guess and where I have repeatedly asked you if you have any examples of how this has caused a problem and you don't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- ...Because I can't edit templates? That was already made clear. This is the last time I'm going to reiterate, but I, not just others that haven't come forward yet, also personally objected to the change and thought that you may revert yourself because I asked and referred to an existing guideline. But it's also clear from your paraphrasing that you've intentionally misunderstood what my point was, so obviously I was mistaken to ask. No need to keep tagging me, I'm done. Ss112 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Sure, and again, all you wrote was "I think there might be a rule somewhere (but I don't know what it is) that someone else (not me) would use to find some reason to object, so you should probably revert yourself even tho nothing bad happened" which is not a useful guide for behavior. I don't understand why you bothered to post to my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe edits need to break templates before they can be reverted. The template has already been restored to the way it was. Your reasoning just sounds like your preference for not having to "scrunch your eyes". I assume if others found discomfort in the way the template's text was presented, as I said above, they would have said something by now, so it doesn't seem to be a problem that needed to be "fixed". Anyway, I'm done speaking about this template now. Contentious changes (i.e. when someone voices disapproval) to widely used templates should be presented on the talk page. Ss112 02:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You came here with no particular complaint referencing no particular guideline or policy and I tried to find the one that I think you most have in mind which is that if a change to a template "significantly change the template's usage or display" to seek consensus or revert. You have no instances where this happened (and I have also searched myself) so what is the problem? I am supposed to revert myself whenever anyone comes to my talk page and says, "The edit you made didn't negatively effect anything, I don't have any policy or guideline in mind that you're violating and I don't even personally have any problem with it but maybe someone else might"? How would anything ever get done here? I have investigated if the edit "significantly change the template's usage or display" and didn't see that it did (except made it so that I could read the text without scrunching my eyes or using custom CSS). By definition, 100%-sized text must be readable... So I don't see the problem here. If you can show me any problems with display or actual policy that was broken or any real-life user whose life is negatively impacted, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're asking me to revert myself to make things harder for me to read because you suspect that someone else may hypothetically object. If I'm misreading this, please correct me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're speaking as if it had to break the formatting before someone can undo your edit when you know your edit didn't break anything, so that's why I said "of course not". Look, if you don't undo your edit, I will ask somebody to revert you, and WP:BRD then directly applies. I asked you to simply undo your own edit because it affects a widely used template and wasn't discussed. Someone (me, in this instance) has an issue and provided a reason, so I thought you would see that BRD applies even though I can't directly revert you myself, and that you would see this. I guess not. If you then edit war like you did with random IPs at Kamikaze, where you made at least 10 reverts in multiple sessions, I will inform an administrator, so please don't. Thanks. Ss112 14:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Of course not"? If it obviously didn't cause any problems then... Thanks for the heads-up about what you think are irrelevant complaints? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course not, because (you know that) all you did was remove the code that made it smaller. I'm just saying I anticipate disagreements, and that it affects appearance where tables are trying to be kept small (hence why I presume the template was small text)—especially in cases where the template is being used to write something else. Ss112 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You probably mean Wikipedia:Template_editor#Changes_that_require_at_least_some_discussion,_or_at_least_several_days_passing_with_no_one_commenting_on_your_proposal which mentions "The addition of new parameters, if they'll significantly change the template's usage or display." So that's why I'm asking if you're seeing some change in display that is making anything worse (unexpected line breaks, horizontal scrolling, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you probably removed the small text to make it "easier" to read, but if nobody has complained about it until now (and there are plenty of editors who are very militant about accessibility on Wikipedia, so I think if there were issues about its appearance they would have been raised by now), then I think it's unnecessary to change. Ss112 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't checked (m)any discographies to see, but I presume there has been widening of columns, and I can't imagine all editors would agree with this change. I was under the impression basically any changes to widely used templates should be proposed on the talk page—Wikipedia itself tells editors to be mindful of this. I might be mistaken, but I also seem to recall there being a note on a guideline relating to template editing that if an editor who cannot edit templates disagrees and cannot revert you themselves, you should undo your change..? Ss112 10:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year for 2019!
.jpg)
- @Simon Peter Hughes: And thank you for helping to spread free culture. I hope that you have a very auspicious year 108, as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Koavf!
Koavf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
- @Rubbish computer: Thanks, RC--always a pleasure to run into you here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |