User talk:Koavf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
An icon of a file folder
User talk:Koavf archives
001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb
002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb
003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb
004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb
005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb
006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb
007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb
008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb
009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb
010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb
011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb
012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb
013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb
014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb
015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb
016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb
017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb
018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb
019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb
020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb
021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb
022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb
023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb
024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb
025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb
026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb
027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb
028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb
030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb
031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb
032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb
033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb
034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb
035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb
036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb
037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb
038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb
039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb
040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb
041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb
042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb
043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb
044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb
045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb
046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb
047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb
048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb
049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb
050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb
051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb
052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb
053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb
054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb
Current discussion

Contents

Image tagging for File:Mister America (2019) film poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Mister America (2019) film poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Midnight Snack[edit]

Please don't continue to revert at The Midnight Snack and Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat. Your blank-and-redirects were contested. The proper thing to do now is to discuss it and reach a consensus, either on the talk page or at AfD. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I don't think they should be deleted--why would I post them to AfD? As you know, per WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE, we cannot have unsourced content here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I was going to come here to post a similar comment to Joe. In cases where there's a back-and-forth over whether an article should be redirected or not, AfD is still the appropriate venue to hash out the discussion, just make it clear in your nominating statement what outcome you're advocating for. signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I already have a consensus at WT:ANIMATION in addition to the fact that WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE are non-negotiable policies at Wikipedia. Where do you see any text at WP:AFD that says that it's an appropriate venue for proposing a redirect? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a policy page on hand to quote at you, but I can say that this has long been the practice as part of new page patrol so as to avoid the perception that we're not giving articles a fair hearing (see WP:DRAFTIFY for an example of an analogous case where it's stated that an article should be taken to AfD following contested moves out of mainspace).
While I agree with your initiative for most of these articles, I would hesitate to call the discussion at WT:ANIMATION a consensus. Taking these articles to AfD will settle the matter once and for all, as opposed to edit warring until 3RR sanctions come into play. signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I found the relevant guidelines: WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR: If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, (Looks like we had an edit conflict). Exactly: consensus should be made before restoration. Note that one of the users undoing these redirects also appeals to WP:PRESERVE which explicitly says that WP:OR and WP:V indicate that material that does not meet these policies should be removed as well as "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published". ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but the other guideline I linked says effectively the opposite: the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input.
Given that there's a contradiction here, we should default to BRD. In most cases, it would appear to be the conversion to a redirect which was the original bold edit, so following the revert to article discussion is the next step. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 [1]Justin (koavf)TCM 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on the importance of removing unsourced content, but repeatedly restoring a revert while quoting policy links at editors who clearly don't understand what's going on is not productive because they're just going to revert you, prolonging the process and ultimately increasing the amount of time that this content is in the mainspace. One of the editors you're warring with is literally 14 if their user page is to be believed.
Also, these articles are about cartoons from almost a century ago, that have been up in mainspace for a decade. We're not exactly dealing with libelous BLPs, one more week spent with a deletion tag on them while we establish a clear consensus is not going to harm anyone. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, There already is a consensus for WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SOURCE for the entire encyclopedia project. If we get a consensus at WP:AFD or WT:ANIMATION or any other page, why would they be more likely to listen to that? Why is the onus on me to expend more overhead for these non-articles that we should never have had instead of someone just saying, "Don't do this again or you'll be blocked"? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Because WP:CIVIL is also policy (and also because other editors will likely stand down once such a consensus has been reached, and because admins will be quick to intervene in the event that someone edits against a clear consensus from an AfD). Additionally, one of the cartoon articles that you've reverted recently, The Two Mouseketeers, has an Oscar win to its name, with an external link to what is probably a reliable source backing up that claim, so at least one of these articles would likely survive an AfD even if the sourcing on the article as written is woefully deficient. signed, Rosguill talk 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, WP:CIVIL? Have I in any way not treated others with consideration and respect? I think I've tried to maintain a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates here. What have I done that is uncivil? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm interpreting CIVIL broadly admittedly, but it's pretty clear that at least one of the editors fighting you over this does not understand why you are reverting the articles and does not understand how writing WP:OR, WP:V etc. in the edit summary is an explanation. Which is frustrating to deal with and arguably close to WP:CIR-territory at that point, but from their perspective it is also very frustrating because content that they care about is being deleted and they 1) don't understand why and 2) don't understand why you have the authority to do this unilaterally, leading them to fight back by edit warring.
At any rate, I think my other argument is better: AfDs end edit wars. We have a guideline (WP:BLAR) saying that this is an acceptable use of AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I have explained this on all of their talk pages and invited all of them to comment at the discussion at WT:ANIMATION; they are choosing to be willfully ignorant and are opposed to discussion or collaboration. Yes, things can be confusing or frustrating but I have done more than just put "WP:OR" in an edit summary: I have made many, many good faith attempts to discuss with them and they have all refused to a person. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, in that case I totally retract my comment about civility. I still think that going to AfD will likely resolve the issue once and for all, but at this point it's your call. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thanks. Your feedback is very much appreciated and I appreciate you giving your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, The second sentence at WP:AFD reads (emphasis added), "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I would be happy to nominate these if I thought it were appropriate but the page explicitly says to not do this. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
pretty sure pages needing redirects in that context means a page that needs a redirect pointing to it. At any rate, see my above comment. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think a reply from me is warranted here, since I am (peripherally) involved in this: I don't see how claims that lack sources are of use to anyone who reads or edits Wikipedia. Content should be verified with reliable sources. Articles about fictional works should also have source-verified content that demonstrates notability—that is, descriptions of backgrounds and critic reviews of the works (articles about The Simpsons episodes are a good example of this); not just a plot summary, otherwise we're just left with an indiscriminate collection of information. Conversely, the Hanna–Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoons were made decades ago, long before computers even existed, so sources that might make these cartoons eligible for stand-alone articles might not be so easily accessible through internet searching—such sources may only be found in old newspapers which aren't stored digitally. Redirecting unreferenced articles for which sources can't be found easily seems to me to be reasonable (as long as their titles are plausible search terms), as the good-faith edits to the articles are preserved under the redirects instead of just being completely deleted, and the redirection can (but shouldn't necessarily) be reversed at any time. By the way, I have filed a full-protection request for The Midnight Snack as this edit war is getting out of hand. Linguist111my talk page 03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Linguist111, Thanks. I am posting this to WT:ANIMATION as well. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Midnight Snack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Joe (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm really shocked that I have to remind you about this given your level of experience. When changes are disputed we, retain the status quo (in this case no redirect) and attempt to reach a consensus. You've been advised by multiple editors (7&6=thirteen, DBigXray, me, Rosguill) that you should stop edit warring over these redirects and take it to AfD or a talk page. Simply informing the other party that they are wrong is not a consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, So when should we include unsourced information in Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
That's beside the point. Unsourced articles are a problem but you cannot impose your preferred solution without consensus. If you'll agree to stop reverting and take these articles to AfD, I'm willing to unblock you. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, Sounds like a plan. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thank you for understanding. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Buffy6x17.jpg[edit]

Hey again. I could not find the FFD nomination on the screenshot at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 6. Even WhatLinksHere doesn't currently show an FFD subpage linking the image. At first I want to complete the nomination on your behalf, but then I figured I'll leave this to you. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, I'm sure it's a problem with overusing the script. I'll renominate. Thanks, George. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 establishments in England[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1000 establishments in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
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) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Project tagging[edit]

1. Many articles are moved automatically, perhaps you’d like to investigate how the talk page is dealt with.

Talk:Tight (INXS song) article moved to Tight (song)
Talk:Too Much Junkie Business, article moved to Too Much Junkie Business

You will note that such talk pages are redirects only, and not tagged for anything, automatically, with nobody going over them to add any tags (and there’s been 100s of them too, recently). There is no benefit to WP or WPSongs to project tag them.

2. Investigating the tags on the two recent changes you have added to the talkpages of Walking Along The River and Wanted For Life , neither article name space is tagged as a song, but as R from other capitalisation and R avoided double redirect. Why do you consider it so important to tag errors with a project?

3. While on the same two redirects, I assume you are aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), yet you managed to managed to create both, which contain blatant contractions of that convention. Perhaps you’d like to explain your reasoning for actually creating the redirect in the first place?

4. There are literally millions of redirects, with little or no relationship to a project. I assume by your actions you think they should all be associated with a project in which case why aren’t you doing it, instead of just editing warring me?

5. You are only concerned with those you have tagged, and nobody else’s. I take from this that your objection is personal, and nothing to do with helping WP, unless…

6. … you can justify your actions, explain what benefit is there to any project tagging mispelt, wrong capitalisation, unnecessary disambiguation and other errata?

So, Justin, let’s hear your reasoning for your actions, persuade and impress me with your clear and concise reasoning that you are helping WP & projects with your editing in these cases. Something other than your oft-repeated and pointless WP:BRD. BTW, It looks nobody is interested in any of the 4 times you have tried to raise this matter, the first time, when you complained about edit warring, you got the response, 'This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation.' You should have paid attention to that. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Richhoncho::
  1. I never said that tags were added automatically--I know that they aren't. It requires manual intervention to tag pages.
  2. I find it useful to tag everything to know what the contents of the encyclopedia are.
  3. They are plausible capitalizations that someone may use, just like (e.g.) Left For Dead
  4. There are only 24 hours in a day. I would ask you the same thing: why are you only edit-warring me? You act like a "war" can be one-sided and that when you do it, it's just okay but when I do it, it's a war.
  5. That's an incorrect take-away: I only see what's on my watchlist. I have 18,000+ things on it and work on many other projects as well--I cannot be responsible for all of your actions.
  6. I did above: I find it handy. On projects where I typically work or have founded, I want those to all be tagged.
Not sure why you think that BRD or the consensus process are "pointless"--if you genuinely believe that, then maybe this isn't a good venue for you. I have followed the recommendations to reach consensus thru every step and you seem totally unwilling and uninterested in that, instead making it personality-based and refusing to engage. Not sure why Bradv thought that you undoing my work four times in 24 hours wasn't a violation: that is also not my responsibility but as to "this is dumb" I could just as easily say, "Rich, your edits are dumb" and would that persuade you? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Disengenious replies, but commenting on No 6 only. "I did above: I find it handy. On projects where I typically work or have founded, I want those to all be tagged." The question is why is it useful , not whether you think it is useful? Other than for edit-warring with other edits when somebody changes your edit, what is the value? Give the world the reasons why you think you are right, you might have something the rest of us have missed.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Nothing I wrote was disingenuous. It's hard to have a conversation when you don't assume good faith. I don't know how to help you here other than to say that tagging allows you to find things on the encyclopedia when they are added to categories or reports by bots for WikiProject project logs (one thing they do is note if something is converted to/from a redirect). ―Justin (koavf)TCM 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
None of your replies were real answers, which is why I asked about No 6 again, but no, Poor Koafv is being picked on again because he can't answer a question straight. Now try and answer Mo 6. - we might get somewhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, They were all "real" answers. I don't know what weird criteria you have in your mind for what constitutes something being a "real" answer. I don't know why I have to ask you this repeatedly, but please don't be disrespectful to me: that is the bare minimum to ask of someone. I gave you a straightforward answer to #6: knowing which redirects belong to a project has several benefits, e.g. expanding redirects with possibilities into articles, retargeting redirects that have sections associated with them, reverting vandalism in obscure redirects that aren't liable to be watched otherwise, deleting implausible or unlikely redirects and having a way of alerting editors that may be interested due to the relevance to a project, etc. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If you think 'WP should do it this way because I like it,' is a reasonable answer you really haven't understood the principals of WP... --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, E.g.? No need to be cryptic. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Re-read your comment: Where did I oblige anyone else to do something? Also, I didn't argue that things should happen because I like them: I gave several possible and practical applications, none of which appealed to my preferences or aesthetics. Just like how no one should do something because I like it, no one should be barred from doing something because you dislike it. This doesn't get us anywhere closer to any truth. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Older I Get (EP)[edit]

Hello!

A deletion discussion is taken place about whether or not The Older I Get (EP) should be presented over the Wikipedia. You may chime in on the topic over at the article entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Older_I_Get_(EP)

Have a nice day! -- Pr12402 (talk 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lady Gaga saying her next album will be called Adele was a joke[edit]

I thought you would know that—every news media outlet has interpreted it as a joke. Also, there is no mention of Adele's name or anything at Lady Gaga's article to support the redirect you created. If you intend to have it be kept, you should insert one, otherwise it can be nominated at WP:RFD. Ss112 19:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, Thanks--very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Will of Chiang Kai-shek[edit]

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 to inform you that a tag has been placed on Talk:Will of Chiang Kai-shek requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 establishments by country[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1000 establishments by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Death metal albums by Cuban artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Death metal albums by Cuban artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Death metal albums by Belarusian artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Death metal albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Industrial albums by Belarusian artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Industrial albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1000 in England[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1000 in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Global templates draft spec[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that when new wikis are created, you often help them create templates that are useful for page design and workflows. Thank you for doing this.

For some time I've been thinking about how could this process be simpler and more automatic, and beneficial not only for small wikis, but for all wikis.

I wrote something about it.

Short version: mw:User:Amire80/Global_templates_draft_spec/TLDR

Long version: mw:User:Amire80/Global_templates_draft_spec

Given your experience, your feedback about this will be very appreciated.

Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Amire80, This is great. I was just thinking about this as nqo.wp got started--I've had some trouble with importing at nap.ws and outreach: and was thinking about how useful global templates would be in the past week. Thanks for the invitation. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 12:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! It means a lot.
If you have the time to read the whole long document and send me any comments that you have, I'll really appreciate it.
I don't expect it to be immediately perfect, and I don't want to "own" it—this kind of a project should become owned by the wide community as early as possible :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Amire80, I have a long day today but it's an open tab so I'll get to it sooner or later. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 12:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:English-language websites has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:English-language websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Podcasts by language has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Podcasts by language, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:English-language podcasts has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:English-language podcasts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Hispanic theologians[edit]

Information.svg

Category:Hispanic theologians has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Group of 9[edit]

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 Group of 9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not 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.

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. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Group of 9[edit]

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 Group of 9 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. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:7″ single[edit]

I thought we weren't supposed to be adding project tags to redirects until the RfC is finished. Or does that only apply to other people and not Justin? I now have a long list of your edits for when the RfC is closed. Hint: If you don't want people to point out your silliness, don't be silly. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Richhoncho, Since there was a practice of doing that with no objection for 13 years, that was the status quo. If you think I shouldn't tag them until the RfC is finished, I think that's a totally reasonable request. I'll make one to you: please be more civil on my talk page and when communicating with me. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That was my argument, but according to you, that didn't count. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, What was your argument? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Leave it, you're not that stupid. You know precisely what I mean. If I can't remove then you can't add irrelevant project tags. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Please don't be rude to me. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Then don't play for the insult. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Until you have something constructive and civil to say, please don't post to my talk page. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hard to be constructive, but the issue is quite simple. Why do you think you have the right to berate me for the very same things you do? It's not difficult, it's not clever, and it so obvious that it shouldn't need spelling out... but you pretend you don't understand.... So here it is, to remain compliant with your own wishes, do not add project tags while there is an RfC active (which you started) as you did with Talk:7″ single --Richhoncho (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, If it's hard to be constructive, you may want to reconsider if you belong on a collaborative website. Please give me an example where I berated you for doing the same thing that I did. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Constructive is doing what you expect others to do, constructive is listening to other people, constructive is not edit warring on the principal of, in your words, 'because I like it I will do it this way.' Don't you dare accuse me of being unconstructive, how many temporary bans have you had now? Now wait until the RfC is closed, as you expect me to do and stop making yourself look sillier and sillier. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Please don't talk down to me and please be civil on my talk page. As I understood it, the dispute was about removing talk page tags that have been on pages for a decade plus. I have not removed any tags since the RfC started. If you want to request that I not add talk page tags to redirects during the duration of the RfC, that's a perfectly fine request to make but there is no reason to be as rude to me as you are being. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy not to talk down to you. Can you raise your game, stop being hypocritical, using bully tactics and pretending you don't understand when you don't want to answer. Then we can have an adult conversation. Thanks for your concern. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, As I've asked you before several times, how am I "bullying" you? Bullying is sustained malice used by one person against another where there's a power asymmetry. None of that is true here. You, on the other hand, keep on using abusive language toward me and I've asked you to stop several times. This newest post includes baseless allegations, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on my character, and slurs. I've not done those to you, so there is no excuse for you doing that to me (even if I had, there would be a reason but not an excuse). You allege that I'm being coy somehow but I'm only being very straightforward with my questions and answers and I have in every instance answered all of the questions you asked. You, on the other hand, are positively being disingenuous and coy when you act like you're going to post like a civil and decent person and then post another rude and unacceptable diatribe on my talk page. Any further messages that you post will not be answered if you do so in a way that is rude: this is the bare minimum that anyone can ask. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have never been abusive to you. I have been abusive about what you say, because you are a bully, uncompromising, not prepared to discuss. Remember this particular debate has been going on for a year and 4/5 posts, on many articles, I have changed my stance several times to accomodate your stance, but you have moved... how far? Have you explained why? No. All I have had from you is I am right and you are wrong. Anyway the point of this post was Why are you project tagging when there is an RfC open? It's not as if you haven't made the same point on my talk page. As I say double standards and they are not mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Sure, I'll go ahead and ask for at least the fourth time: how am I "bullying"? Please do not post flagrant lies on my talk page as I have 1.) never bullied you, 2.) I have in fact changed my perspective several times on how these talk pages could be amended (e.g. including the talk page redirect template or including a hard-coded redirect at the top), 3.) I have given explanations for my changes over and over again and answered every question you have asked me. You saying that I have not explained myself is a lie. Again, I will ask you to explain yourself: how have I "bullied" anyone? Stop the lies and stop the abuse. As I have explained above, today, in this same thread: tags have been on redirects for well over a decade, so that is the status quo. Since you have requested that I stop adding them, I have stopped adding them to redirects I have edited (e.g.) Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. It is not appropriate for you to keep on spreading slurs and lies without justifying your claim that I am bullying: either back up that false assertion or stop speaking to me. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, according to you I need lessons in being polite and nice to you, so perhaps, in the spirit of cooperation, you could word the following question for me, 'Justin, why do you do the very things you ask other editors not to do i.e. edit while there is an active RfC? And then just for completeness, you might like to actually answer the question - saying it's been going on for 13 years does not answer the RfC question. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please set an example then and actually answer a question, as I have reposed here, the reason I came to your talkpage and the reason I keep going on. YOU answer the FIRST question first and then we might actually be able to move on. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, I have to mind my language, but you can call me a liar. I call you hypocrite again. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, when I started adding Project tags to songs, there was about 357 redirects... Other than the reason that a mistitle (for whatever reason) is not a song and cannot be a song (the very opposite of the crux of your argument), is that I go through the r from song & redirects (download to Excel) and check for matches, anything not matching I amend accordingly, whether than means adding or removing the r from song or reassessing, removing or adding a project tag. It also serves several other purposes. On a clean sweep nearly every entry will have a matching pair. So far, only one person has complained in nearly 10 years. Now can you explain why adding a project tag to a mistitle is so useful to you and what further steps you take having added the project tag? OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Please stop lying and answer the question I have asked you several times now or else do not post here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Insult and dodge the question again? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, Stop. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Electronic albums by Belarusian artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Electronic albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Progressive rock albums by Belarusian artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Progressive rock albums by Belarusian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mister America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Marquee
On Cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Marquee

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dance music albums by Egyptian artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Dance music albums by Egyptian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wales, Jimmy (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l. Retrieved 2007-01-31.