User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Over the last few months, several editors have told you to stop creating redirects via page moves. Each time, they have given you several reasons why this is not only bad practice, but disruptive. Plantdrew warned you about it in February. Ss112 explained it to you again in April, and I gave you a final warning in May. Each and every time someone has tried explaining this to you, you have refused to discuss this issue, and continued the disruptive behavior. I had hoped a short, 24hr block would be a wake-up call to you, but even then, you seemed to push aside the reason for your block, and instead asked to just be blocked from moving pages (which is not technically possible). Imagine my surprise today, when I find out that you have continued these disruptive page moves, at Axis Mundi (album) and Hey DJ (song). Therefore, I have issued a block of two weeks. I do hope this is long enough for you to look over the warnings that have been issued to you and come to an understanding as to why creating redirects in this fashion is disruptive. I am disappointed that it has come to this, and I really hope this can be resolved. Respectfully, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Tavix:, I object to this block, because I moved pages from the wrong title to the correct title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like to appeal, you can use the unblock template and an uninvolved administrator will review the situation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey DJ is an article about a song (by World's Famous Supreme Team). Hey DJ (disambiguation) also listed a song by Suburban Legends. I've since added the redirect for the CNCO song and pointed Hey DJ (song) to the dab page (though it could also perhaps go to the WFST song at the base title). "Hey DJ (song)" should never have been associated with CNCO; it's too ambiguous, and the putative primary topic is also a song. Plantdrew (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I moved those pages from a title with band name disambiguation (Axis Mundi (Decrepit Birth album)/Hey DJ (CNCO song)) to a title with only "type of work" disambiguation (Axis Mundi (album)/Hey DJ (song)), which is a perfectly acceptable reason to move a Wikipedia article. If the purpose of sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia, and not to reprimand the user, I will gladly accept a temporary BAN from moving ANY pages at all in lieu of a block. If I do not move pages, I cannot create the types of errors described herein. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Firstly, those misnamed pages were redirects. If you move a redirect, you leave behind another (double) redirect which then needs to be cleaned up. It does not actually get rid of the original redirect. Secondly, you created those misnamed redirects in the first place before moving them in the same minute (twice). Don't pretend you didn't do this on purpose. Finally, you didn't understand the last time that this approach was undesirable after getting blocked for it. You should have self-imposed a ban on doing the stuff that got you blocked. Huon (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Before this block, I was not prohibited from moving pages, I was only asked not to move pages to create redirects, as this adds the "{{R from page move}}" template to the redirect. If I agree not to move ANY pages AT ALL for the next two weeks, or even the next month, there is no possible way that I can create these redirects saying "{{R from page move}}". This point satisfies WP:GAB "that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Per WP:GAB, I "understand what [I am] blocked for, [I] will not do it again, and [I] will make productive contributions instead", which is implied in not moving ANY pages at all for the next two weeks, and requesting ANY moves during the next two weeks at WP:RM. I am only required to satisfy one of these two points, and I am making a sincere attempt to satisfy both. I understand that I should not move redirects, and I shall refrain from doing so, unless perhaps, there is a compelling reason for doing so. I have been a productive editor for almost one decade, and have been blocked without a consensus hearing at WP:AN. The purpose of a block is to enforce a ban, with which I plan to comply. With this block, I cannot edit any other parts of the encyclopedia. When told to avoid placing too many tags on articles, I set criteria for doing so at User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15#My_proposed_guidelines_for_tagging. These guidelines have worked out well for avoiding too many tags. I have contributed hundreds of navigation boxes to the encyclopedia, for which I received a barnstar award regarding "creating and adding templates for industrial music articles". In the near future, I plan to create "Ron Thal discography" and finish adding "Template:Keith Jarrett" to all articles pertaining to him. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

procedural decline, user is no longer blocked (see discussion below). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Jax, that was not the only reason you were asked not to move pages. It was also pointed out to you that it creates a double redirect, which bots then have to come and fix as you are unwilling to fix them yourself (some of these double redirects I noticed were actually left for days before a bot fixed them). On a similar note, you previously told me you were unwilling to correct yourself when it came to adding dates to the maintenance templates you add to pages, like {{+r}}, because "a bot fixes these". Nobody is denying that you have contributed positive things to Wikipedia; however, you prefaced this with you saying you followed your own "proposed guidelines", which you didn't really follow for that long before you fell back into old habits (I pointed this out in the thread you linked to, which you did not reply to). You blanked significant portions of articles that had not been tagged as being unsourced for very long at all, which you said you would not do in your own guidelines. So I really hope that you stick to not moving redirects to create new ones (usually for a band you've noticed doesn't have existing redirects for any of their albums) this time. Ss112 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ss112:, sorry I did not reply to your thread. For the most part, unless the material is libelous, I have avoided blanking entire sections of articles in recent history, even though they should be properly referenced in the first place. If I do not move ANY pages, I cannot create double redirects by moving pages.

As it stands today, I cannot edit MY own user pages. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

About that, offhand, i think it is part of being blocked. Blocking imposes a cost on the blocked person. Allowing someone who is blocked for creating bad BLP pages for example (not the case here) to create many more bad BLP pages in their userspace, ready to spring them upon the world when their block expires, is not what we want. Nor in general is allowing a blocked person to continue on in any other vein, as if they have not been blocked. I could be wrong about this being the intended practice/policy. --doncram 21:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ss112 and User:Huon (and perhaps User:Tavix?) have made invalid complaint that page moves have created double redirects which Jax 0677 has not cleaned up. That complaint is absolutely invalid because as all parties know there are bots which serve us by fixing double redirects within a day or two. It is 100% fine and good to leave to bots what bots do. Jax 0677 has therefore been blocked at least partly for completely invalid reasoning. This somewhat discredits whatever other purported reason block-supporters or unblock-deniers are making, too. It seems to me that on this basis Jax 0677 should perhaps be unblocked now, allowing for a clear re-start by all parties. --doncram 21:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that creating a double redirect is grounds for a block. I meant to point out that when that double redirect has been fixed by a bot, we end up with exactly the same redirect the move was supposedly meant to correct (except with a less helpful template than before). Huon (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm TheMagnificentist. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Axis Mundi (album), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

- TheMagnificentist 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

FFD relisting

You didn't finish relisting File:Williamsport Regional Airport - Pennsylvania.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Whpq:, sorry for the error. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Technical request

Hi. I removed your technical request with regards to Johnson Controls -> Johnson Controls International. You are best placed to open a move discussion on the talk page about this. st170e 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) 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/Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Acacia Strain

It would be helpful when you add "outdated" templates to explain how it is outdated in your edit summary. Their 2017 album has been added. What are you referring to? You also didn't need to revert me there as you simply added it in a different place, which had nothing to do with my removal of it altogether. I don't remove maintenance templates without a good reason, and you didn't specify any reason. Hence the removal. Ss112 13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about here? You do understand how WP:3RR works after all this time on WP, right? Violating 3RR would mean going over three reverts ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page"; I reverted you twice; I didn't even realise until after I removed the spaces around the bold that you had added it in the first place. That was a helpful edit, not a revert—there's no need to have spacing around boldface, and for consistency, there should be none, as the lead singer doesn't have any around his name. Furthermore, if you're concerned about band members being updated, why can't you do it yourself? That would have solved the issue in the first place. Ss112 13:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Asleep at the Wheel

Articles get outdated when they talk about something that's scheduled to happen in 2015 when it's 2017. Templates should not be tagged as outdated. You're pulling the same shenanigans when you created navigation boxes and refused to complete them even when there were other existing articles to put in them. Now, a new article is created and instead of adding it to the template, you add the outdated tag. Are you so lazy it's easier for you to add the tag, expect someone else to come along, figure out what's missing, than for you - who must know exactly what is missing or you wouldn't put the tag - to add the article yourself? Please be a benefit to the community instead of finding yet another way to become a hindrance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, sorry for the error. I have changed the tag to {{incomplete}}. If I am on a mobile phone, if there are too many updates needed, can I not then use this tag? WP:OUTDATED says "If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You can make the effort to add the tag but not update the template? That makes zero sense. Maybe you can just come back when you have the time do it yourself rather then rely on someone to stumble across it and figure out what needs to be added. There is no deadline so better that someone with your knowledge of what's missing takes care of it when you can rather than some random editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lisa Chan Pete Hoekstra ad photo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lisa Chan Pete Hoekstra ad photo.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) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Axis Mundi (album)

Jax, your addition of spacing to headings on Axis Mundi (album) was reverted last month. You didn't write the page; an IP originally drafted it and their first major post-redirect revision did not have spacing in the headings; you added it, it was reverted. Maintain the original style per WP:RETAIN, so stop restoring it. It is disruptive and adds unnecessary bytes to a page. Also, do not add spacing around bold markup. This is incorrect and unnecessary. Also, there is no need for underscores in wikilinks, so when you create redirects, there is no need for them, even when linking to a specific section. Ss112 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ss112:, thank you very much for your message.

1. Unless it is one of my user pages, I will try to avoid adding spacing around headings to pages that I do not create, unless I add the first heading.
2. I added spacing around bold markup, as this makes it easier to do Control Left or Control Right without bypassing the first or last letter of the bold phrase. However, I will try to refrain from doing so in the future, except on my own user pages.
3. The reason that there are underscores in the wikilinks, is because I copy them from the full URL, then paste them. Since this is the easiest way to create redirects to a page title/section with multiple spaces, I think that it is unnecessary to be adamant about underscores. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. Ss112 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ss112:, also, I do not feel it is mandatory to add dates to most tags, especially if I am editing from a mobile phone. The bot usually adds these dates in due time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Linkn Paark listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linkn Paark. Since you had some involvement with the Linkn Paark redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Meeks history-merge request

• You asked me to history-merge Talk:Jeremy Meeks (disambiguation) and Talk:Jeremy Meeks (convict) and Talk:Jeremy meeks all into Talk:Jeremy Meeks. Unfortunately, that cannot be done, because Talk:Jeremy Meeks (convict) has only one edit, and that one is a redirect, and the other 3 pages are all WP:Parallel histories. It may be best for you to text-merge them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Reply -@Anthony Appleyard:, I'll try, but it may be wrong. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitchell Tenpenny

Please don't tell an experience editor how to do things, citing an essay that is not Wikipedia guidelines. Official guideline is here - Wikipedia:Red link. I am in the process of writing the article, looking up sources to see what can be place in there. Your edit is pointless and will soon be reverted. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A BIG Thanks for welcoming me to Wikepidia and reporting Account Hyjacking

Hey Jax 0677, Firstly,I would like to give a BIG thanks for welcoming me a warm welcome to the wiki...it proves that the wiki community are very welcoming to newer members!However,I have a simple request to ask of you-could you possibly check Wikipedia for Transformers "Soundwave" for I have noticed a number of accounts with similarity in names of accounts.Hyjacking and vandalism is against the wiki rules and the person behind these accounts must be put to an end.If this has already been dealt with then I apologise for causing inconvenience.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazok1000 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Kazok1000:, I would recommend asking this question at WP:AN or WP:HD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Texas Live

Just FYI, the photos added on the New Rangers Ballpark article are of the adjacent Texas Live! development, not the ballpark. It even has the "opening in 2018" date on it; the ballpark hasn't been started yet. See https://www.dallasnews.com/news/arlington/2017/03/29/ground-breaks-rangers-250-million-texas-live-entertainment-complex. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @JonRidinger:, thank you very much for your email. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that the entertainment complex will surround the New Rangers Ballpark. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost (see full master plan), but it's still a separate, but obviously related development that the current and future ballparks will be a major part of. The current renderings of Texas Live! at the site and the construction are the entertainment venues; the ballpark can only be partially seen in the background. The new ballpark article here on Wikipedia should make mention of Texas Live! since the ballpark is being built in conjunction with it, but the photos aren't of the new ballpark or its construction yet. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Eldredge (album)

I added several sources to the article. It's clear you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on this one. Think it's good to withdraw now that it's been handily proven that several sources exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For clearly not using WP:BEFORE and thinking that a major label album that's already been released and has a Top 15 hit is not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

I'd just like to say thank you for creating the page of my 2nd cousin, Kyle Sanders. I've removed the redirect and made it a stub page that needs to be completed. You better not make it a redirect page. You're a cool guy for making the page. Thank you.Gentlemannofhats (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Stick to Your Guns

Sorry for the revert on Stick to Your Guns, but I was under the impression from your edit summary that you had added the album itself to the page. I discovered after reverting you that it was not in fact you, however it still appears you formatted the album while it had no reference to back up the claim it even existed on the page. Please verify albums exist before formatting them and creating redirects for them. It's why I tagged On the Rocks (Midland album) for speedy deletion—it appears you just created the redirect because an IP added it to the page. This doesn't mean it's legitimate. (Yes, I'm aware it's sourced now, but I could find no evidence a week ago it even existed.) Ss112 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ss112:, thank you for your suggestion. I do not disagree with what you are saying. On the flip side of that, I have gotten scolded for {{PROD}}DING items that had a lack of references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schrody listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Francis Schrody. Since you had some involvement with the Francis Schrody redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for kindly creating a discussion at Move Review, Instead of slapping me with a warning or reverting with "wrong venue" you kindly set up a move review instead (something until today I didn't know even existed!) and that was greatly appreciated so thank you very much :) Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Gal Costa

You asked: Comment - Why was Cantar moved to Cantar (album)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Because cantar means a classical cantar. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an English book search "Cantar is" "Cantar was" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @In ictu oculi:, there is only one article named "Cantar". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot distinguish a capital C in initial position. We do have other cantar articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

False Idol

Hi, I saw you created False Idol, but False idol redirects to idolatry due to the concept, and per what others (like IIO in the section above) generally say in discussions, a capital letter (in this case, the I) isn't really enough to distinguish between the concept of a false idol and a proper noun title. Readers might think to capitalise the I already, so I have created False Idol (album). Ss112 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Kenny Clarke/Francy Boland Big Band navbox

Please make sure you add {{Kenny Clarke/Francy Boland Big Band}} to all appropriate articles. I wouldn't want you to fall back into your old habits. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, thank you very much for your email. Please see [1], which shows that I have started this process. I plan to add this template to about five articles per day. Adding a template of this size to all applicable articles is a large undertaking. Believe it or not, working on one large navigation box without doing other things in the interim becomes monotonous. I have created several large navigation boxes in the past year, and they have all been placed on their applicable articles in due time, even though completion was not instantaneous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Kam Franklin - no consensus?

Hi jax, I'm curious why you closed the Kam ranklin AfD as "no consensus"? There were 3 "keep" !votes and the only "delete" vote was from John Pack Lambert, who votes delete on everything. The article currently has 39 references, which is more than enough to positively establish notability. Robman94 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - "No consensus" defaults to keep. Magnolia677 voted delete by submitting it to AFD. There must have been a reason for the second relist, after which no comments were made. Since no comments were made, I voted no consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

By the Way (Lindsay Ell song)

Can you at least try with your articles? How about an infobox at least? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, can you please at least try to put a link to By the Way (Lindsay Ell song) in the talk page section that you write, so that people can just click on it? I was planning to add to the article, as I have with others, but I did follow what WP:PUTEFFORT specifies. The song placed on two separate charts, and had a music video. The article had more than half a dozen references to its name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but you didn't format the article anywhere close to right, didn't add any categories, and didn't even put in an infobox. Same with when you made Midland (EP); you didn't even bother with a track list, which is at least the bare minimum for an album article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, please see WP:IDEALSTUB and look carefully at the edits. There was a track listing in my second edit of the article shown here [2]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note that WP:NSONG states: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". For this article, it worked out there was indeed enough material. And to be clear, this isn't a knock against stub articles. But even WP:IDEALSTUB says, "the key is to provide adequate context" and "try to expand upon this basic definition". I think it creates an unnecessary amount of confusion and ambiguity (i.e., more work for others) to leave an article with a single sentence and two tables.  gongshow  talk  23:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

DED (band)- "Remember the Enemy"

Asking as not to cause an edit war.

Do we really need three sources to show "Remember the Enemy" was released as a single? I honestly think one is enough.--Topper13009 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply -@Topper13009:, one is fine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of English writers (A–D) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of English writers (A–D) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English writers (A–D) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Alrosa Villa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alrosa Villa 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/Alrosa Villa (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Granger Smith discography

Your tagbombing was completely unnecessary. Unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its existence, one should not need a citation merely proving that the album exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, sorry for late reply, I was unable to access a computer. On one hand, one could say that the work of art is the reference, but I am not sure that putting it on there without a citation is good practice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also, what do you have against infoboxes? Do you find them too hard to format? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I do not think that an infobox is mandatory in order to begin a stub. My article for "By the Way" was redirected, only to have it restarted. This is similar to destroying the house while it is being built. As long as there is sufficient referencing and substance, the article should probably remain, or else be nominated for merging/deletion. Also, what do you have against linking the article Granger Smith discography in the discussion, to make it easier to reach more quickly? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  

Almost in relation to this Jax, on Krewella discography, you "thank" me for my edit (in the summary of which I say "we don't need CN tags for a [short section] that is already tagged for refimprove"), then you go and add a CN tag anyway? Why? Refimprove already points out we need additional citations for the section; we can see what is unsourced there. Ss112 17:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ss112:, sorry for late reply, I was unable to access a computer. Without the {{CN}} tags, it may be difficult to know that one reference covers multiple pieces of work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi Jax, please follow the instructions at WP:AFD/AI when you're closing AfD discussions. Specifically: don't forget to remove the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} line on the discussion page and the AfD tag on the article. Thanks! ansh666 20:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Ansh666:, sorry about that, my mistake. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• No problem, just wanted to make sure you were aware. ansh666 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

@rara12355 here i love you

1234dth (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thank you 1234dth (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

how do i talk to another people on here ?

• Reply - @1234dth:, please see WP:TP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion/s would be welcome here

[3] Reaper7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Noise Unit

Template:Noise Unit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Makin' This Boy Go Crazy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Makin' This Boy Go Crazy 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/Makin' This Boy Go Crazy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Tom Petty

Template:Tom Petty has been nominated for merging with Template:Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Prodding discography articles

Hi. If you find a discography article that is short and in your opinion not worthy of a separate article, please just merge them into the artist article rather than keeping on prodding them. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Michig:, when you post on my talk page, please link to the article(s) in question. I am giving people one week to fix articles that have very few references, instead of simply eliminating them outright. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• They don't need eliminating. Discographies are generally easy to verify. Most of the ones your prod should be in the artist article in the first place rather than split out to a separate article. --Michig (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Michig:, I am not disagreeing with most of what you say. However, I do not wish to unilaterally make the decision to merge the discography articles. BTW, would you be willing to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that PRODding and nominating articles for deletion are inappropriate venues to discuss mergers. While redirects and mergers are potential outcomes in deletion discussion, that is not what PROD and AfD are for. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Brett Young (EP) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brett Young (EP) 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/Brett Young (EP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. 3 nominations are not "abuse of the process", especially when 1 has resulted in delete and the other was a no consensus. This article has never had a keep result. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Niteshift36:, for ease of access, one should link to the article to which the are referring. Also, WP:DTTR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• How many people have you accused of 'abusing the process' in the past few hours? Is that a pattern for you? And when the "regular" apparently doesn't understand the AfD process and makes bad faith allegations, the template looks more appropriate. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pretty amusing that you'd complain about DTTR, yet template me for the missing a signature. I expect nothing better from you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Niteshift36: , a couple of things I need to mention. First, the top of my talk page says "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me (@Jax 0677:), so I will be notified", but you replied here, and you deleted the section on your talk page. Second, what I left about signing your post was NOT a template, it was a customized (albeit brief) note with an editing difference instead of just the page. Third, I linked to the proper page, which is something that you still have not done for the past three days. Fourth, you still have not signed the post in question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks (2nd nomination). Fifth, two editors other than myself have indicated that the AFD nomination for Jeremy Meeks this soon is too soon after the last one. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't respond to your template on my page, so there was nothing to link you to. Second, anyone with any common sense can see that I routinely sign my posts and that missing a single one was a mere oversight, much like making a typo. It certainly didn't need your "helpful" reminder. Third, I'm not going to link to the remark because you obviously know which remark I'm talking about. Lastly, while another opined that he felt it was too early, he didn't express it as a personal attack as you did when you called it an abuse of the process". It isn't an abuse. You have NO POLICY that shows it's an abuse and others have also supported that it is not an abuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD nominations

Look, I'm giving you a last chance now, because I'd rather not sink so much of either of our time in Wikipedia's discussion boards when there's other things we'd rather be doing, but if you don't stop with all of these "failure of WP:BEFORE" nominations, I'm going to seek to get you topic banned from AFD. You're wasting too much of the community's time on lazy nominations. Please consider what I'm saying - considering how many people you're irritating at AFD, sanctions are almost certain to pass. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sergecross73:, is it OK if I boldly redirect articles that are not properly referenced, similar to what was done with Brett Young (EP) and Makin' This Boy Go Crazy? I tried to use {{PROD}} in order to give people one week to prove that an article is notable, despite my believing that it may not be notable. The {{PROD}} notices, as well as {{NR}} and {{NN}} tags are being removed without first resolving the issues. I am attempting to remove articles that are, as far as I can tell, not notable. When my navboxes were nominated for deletion, WP:BEFORE failed to be followed on a multitude of occasions, yet I am being expected to follow this guideline. I followed WP:IDEALSTUB on the navboxes and articles, and was chastised at times nonetheless. When I {{PROD}} or AFD pages that don't seem to follow both WP:N and WP:IDEALSTUB, I get chastised. I feel that there seems to be a double standard going on.

In conclusion, I will try to follow WP:BEFORE, boldly redirect the article right away, or tag it with {{NN}} & {{NR}} if that is what is needed.

Furthermore, I have been chastised for removing unreferenced sections that have been in place for more than one year, despite the fact that {{Ublp}} says that "Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, you may boldly redirect articles, as long as you follow WP:BRD.
2. I can't comment on your Navbox issues, as I wasn't there, and you haven't linked to them, so I have no idea of the context. That being said, a crucial part of the issue here is how many times you've failed to follow through on BEFORE. It's not so wrong to occassionally send an article to AFD and have someone find sources you couldn't find. But I think we're getting close to like 10 times now in the last few months where your AFD's have been kept as a strong or unanimous "Keep". It's a combination of having so many bad nominations and how strongly the community has disagreed with your nominations. Its especially an issue since, up until today, you didn't show any signs of stopping or understanding the issue.
3. Please keep in mind that AFD is not your only option on these sorts of things. You can start up merge/redirect discussions on article talk pages, respective band/musician's talk pages, and respective WikiProject's talk pages, and often get the same sort of feedback, without everyone yelling at you that you're at the wrong venue.
4. If you're feeling too lazy to do any research and implementation of sources when you have notability concerns, maybe consider that deletion nominations are not for you, and you should focus your efforts on something else. As you say above, you can add things like notability, ref improvement, and other cleanup tags on articles that you only have a passing concern about. But if you're unwilling to do any research on your side of things, article deletion nominations are not for you, and you need to stop.

Anyways, overall, your statement of I will try to follow WP:BEFORE, boldly redirect the article right away, or tag it with {{NN}} & {{NR}}" is an acceptable way to move forward on this. I won't push further if you can stick to this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Mirasolo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Mirasolo 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/Christopher Mirasolo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Train^talk 10:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Brett Young (EP)

"After accepting a scholarship to play baseball at the University of Mississippi, young left his guitar behind and focused on sports. After seriously injuring his elbow, music became his outlet. Soon after, he decided to try his hand at songwriting for eight years in Los Angeles. " is more relevant to the artist's biography than to the EP. And that info already is on his biography. Also, "try his hand" is an informal tone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

Is it really that hard to open up billboard.com yourself and find the source you need instead of slapping a [citation needed] on a chart position? Or better yet, maybe check to see if the source you need is already in the article? Albums do not need sources simply to prove that they exist. If you're so concerned about this, why is it so fucking hard to dig up the sources yourself when you clearly know where they are? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, WP:CIVIL. If the citation is not in the vicinity of the information, I have every right to tag it with {{CN}}, unless WP:BLUE. It is like saying that a discography page does not need any references at all. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Again. One of the citations you needed was already in the article and yet you couldn't be bothered to check it. Is there a reason you can't be bothered to find the citations yourself, yet you have enough time to tag every line with a [citation needed]? How hard is it to just find the sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, WP:BURDEN, and it is easier to tag the article than it is to look all over the article and internet for the sources. Others said that I may reasonably tag the article if I please. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Chart positions are in the same spot almost every time. They're almost always on billboard.com unless it's a very old obscure artist. I'm sure you can figure out easily how to work Billboard's site. Or check to see if again, the source you need is already in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave it as it is

@Jax 0677:

The format of Year in Heavy Metal Music dates back decades and has remained in the same format. There are typically less albums released in December because of the Christmas holiday and people spending their money on presents, food etc. so worrying about reaching 100KB is not an issue.

It may be beneficial to review and delete albums listed under the Artists with material in production as there are many that will clearly not be released in the year 2017 such as Carcass, Ghost and Slipknot to name but a few. Gorod's EP Kiss The Freak has already been released so perhaps a big sort out is in order. I would do this myself, but when I have created Wikipedia pages recently they have been nominated to be deleted instantly. So I cannot be arsed with the fickleness of others.

In summary, leave the format as it is as there are hundreds if not thousands of people who make use of Year in Heavy Metal Music pages on a regular basis on Wikipedia.

Thanks for reading! =)

• Unsigned comment by User:2A02:C7F:5C31:4F00:9CED:2F41:7065:FDD2

• Comment - Post to enable archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion

Hi Jax, I would like to ask you a question. Do you nominate articles for deletion simply in the hope of someone improving unreferenced stubs? Because it seems like you nominate articles that are clearly notable despite lack of references and indication of notability. While the burden falls on the author to demonstrate verifiability, just because they didn't doesn't mean the article is subject to deletion. Prior to nominating an article for deletion, you are required to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE because there may be alternatives to deletion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, is it OK if I boldly redirect articles that are not properly referenced, similar to what was done with Brett Young (EP) and Makin' This Boy Go Crazy? I tried to use {{PROD}} in order to give people one week to prove that an article is notable, despite my believing that it may not be notable. The {{PROD}} notices, as well as {{LR}} and {{CN}} tags are being removed without first resolving the issues. I am attempting to remove articles that are, as far as I can tell, not notable. When my navboxes were nominated for deletion, WP:BEFORE failed to be followed on a multitude of occasions, yet I am being expected to follow this guideline. I followed WP:IDEALSTUB on the navboxes and articles, and was chastised at times nonetheless. When I {{PROD}} or AFD pages that don't seem to follow both WP:N and WP:IDEALSTUB, I get chastised. I feel that there seems to be a double standard going on.

In conclusion, I will try to follow WP:BEFORE, boldly redirect the article right away, or tag it with {{NN}} & {{NR}} if that is what is needed.

Furthermore, I have been chastised for removing unreferenced sections that have been in place for more than one year, despite the fact that {{Ublp}} says that "Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not use {{PROD}} as a way to get others to prove an article's notability. If you feel the article is about a non-notable topic AND its deletion would be uncontroversial, then propose the article be deleted. If another editor removes the PROD and you truly believe it is not notable, follow WP:BEFORE, perhaps contact the person who removed the tag, then if you're convinced it should still be deleted take it to WP:AFD with well-reasoned deletion rationale that shows you did your due diligence. If that's too much work for you, then (like Serge says below) maybe you should refrain from nominating articles for deletion.

I have no problem with you boldly redirecting articles, especially for stubs that have been unreferenced for years, but if the redirect is reverted, don't revert back and don't immediately take it to AFD. You can leave it be, tag it for its issues (without slapping tags all over the article like you have done in the past), reach out to the editor who reverted it. But don't nominate it for deletion until you've done some research and that research comes up empty.

NAVBOXES are not articles so WP:BEFORE and WP:IDEALSTUB does not apply to them. NAVBOXES are navigational tools to aid readers, and an incomplete NAVBOX doesn't not aid the reader and does not benefit Wikipedia. A NAVBOX cannot be a stub.

I don't know what unreferenced sections you are removing in articles but realize that 1) {{BLP unsourced}} is only for biographies and 2) you should only be removing "contentious material" if it is unsourced. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - The 1994 North American cold wave article was nominated for AFD without utilizing WP:BEFORE. In any event, navboxes should not be nominated for deletion without checking to see if they can be expanded appropriately, or merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of New Wave (Powerman 5000 album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Wave (Powerman 5000 album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave (Powerman 5000 album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To Those Left Behind

Please don't simply copy and paste chart info from an artist's discography page to album or song articles as you did here. First, you didn't even cut info not pertinent to the article as you simply reposted the chart info for all the artist's studio albums. Second, you obviously didn't check/confirm the links as many of the access dates on the citations are dated 2012 even though the album was released in 2015. Finally, formatting of chart tables on album and song articles should be modeled per MOS:CHARTS. You need to do these three things when bringing chart info over from another article. If you can't handle it, don't do it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, thank you very much for your message. I got sidetracked, and forgot to remove the other albums. According to WP:IDEALSTUB, I need only provide sufficient context for the information, especially if I do not have the skill set to create the album chart positions on the album article page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You only tend to read what you want to read. Idealstub also says "it is useful to conduct some research beforehand to ensure that your facts are accurate and unbiased." Since you can't use Wikipedia as its own source, when you copy and paste it implies that you are checking the sources you are adding into another article. If you are too lazy to do so, I suggest you refrain from copying content from other pages without confirming the sources you are copying. Please be a useful member of the Wikipedia community by doing research, checking sources, and not being so lazy. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I echo what @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: said. Your articles, on the occasion you make them, are just lazily copy-pasted from existing content. You can't be bothered to figure out how to add an infobox or categories, which most people who've been here over a year can figure out with no issue. You can't be bothered to use Google to find the sources you need, and are content with spamming every last inch of an article with {{Citation needed}} -- even though it would take literally the same amount of effort to either a.) ask someone more experienced with source-finding to dig it up for you or b.) do it yourself. If you "don't have the skill set" to make a passable article, then don't make them. And I still believe that you do have the skill set given how long you've edited here, you just choose not to and half-ass everything instead, making more work for everyone else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, I apologize, and I do not disagree, that the references need dates that are either the date that I updated the article, or some date after the ranking is published if the link happens to be dead. @TenPoundHammer:, infoboxes are not mandatory, and I usually add a sufficient existing category to the articles that I create. I am within my right to use {{CN}} within reason, so that people know where sources are lacking. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)