User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Template:Saving Jane

What exactly needs updating on Template:Saving Jane? I see nothing that's out of date. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, there are no songs in the template, but there are 2 songs that the band wrote with Wikipedia articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: then you want {{missing}}. That's a problem of information being outright missing, not out of date. I did put the songs in the template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Jessie James Decker

I have no idea why you are obsessed with adding tags, but there will come a point when you will be taken to the the ANI. If you are aware of that there are more chart entries and no one else did, you don't you simply add that? What is the point of you adding the tag when you can simply add the information yourself? Hzh (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Hzh:, it is courteous to link to the article in question when you post on the talk page of another user. I added the tag in accordance with the guidelines here. I do not have the skill set to add numbers to a table. Someone told me that I am within my right to add the information as text, as I have done for Outline in Color. This is exactly what tags are for, to notify other editors that the information is missing. I have been criticized in the past for copying and pasting tables from an artist article to an album article in a format which does not belong in a particular article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Which other chart figures do you want to add? Charts based on sales are generally not given in the table since they are component charts (i.e. country sales chart is a component chart of Top Country Albums, it is therefore not used). Current Albums is also not usually added since Billboard 200 is the one normally used. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Hzh:, if the other 3 charts do not belong, so be it. For now, I will remove the tag. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-catimprove

Template:Uw-catimprove has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 10 year challenge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10 year challenge 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/10 year challenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

TriStar Products moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, TriStar Products, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TriStar Products (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:TriStar Products and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:TriStar Products, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jax 0677! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Winnebago Deal

Template:Winnebago Deal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 14:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (The End of Chaos) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The End of Chaos.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work, references from another source would be useful to include if you can. Regards

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Hughesdarren:, I only created the redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I'll copy the curation message over to the editor who wrote the article. Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 10 year challenge

The article 10 year challenge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

merged into Facebook

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeffreyLoeber (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 (version 2) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 (version 2). Since you had some involvement with the United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 (version 2) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Roadrunner United

Template:Roadrunner United has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 13:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-catimprove

When creating new user warning pages, please be sure to notify the project per the instructions at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Creating and renaming user talk templates. You shouldn't be creating such templates unilaterally. Personally, I believe this one you created is a bad idea. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, I just left a message at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Please let me know if there is anything more that I need to do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Jax, the template discussion closed with no consensus but even the ones who favored keeping suggested a rewrite. I hope you will work with the community and ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to get consensus on what it should say before implementing use of the template. I would expect you would only use this to inform newer editors about newly created pages and not for a 4-year old navbox by an author who hasn't edited in a year as you did here. You tend to be a little tag happy as it is, so I recommend using this conservatively. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, I believe that if you start an article, you should put on it a suitable category. I will take your statement under advisement, but reserve the right to use the template. That being said, I have not opposed the changes put forth so far, nor will I oppose changes agreed to by consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Expectedly uncooperative. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for Trying

You don't put a citation need tag in the infobox. I don't need reminding. I've been here long enough. Sometimes people get busy and don't get to it right away. Thanks for trying. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Fishhead2100:, please link to the article in question when you post on someone's talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It is just a general reminder. I removed it from the infobox and sourced the date within the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Helicopter dick

Hello, Jax 0677,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Helicopter dick, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Helicopter dick for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dylan Scott

In Dylan Scott, the discography doesn't need citations for "Mmm Mmm Mmm" and "Lay It on Me". Both of those are already verified as singles in the body of the article, so they don't need to be re-verified again in the discography table. That would only apply if the discography were only on its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Requests for Comments

User:Jax 0677 - Please see Requests for Comments. The usual running time for Requests for Comments is 30 days. They are unlike deletion requests, which run for 7 days unless relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Robert McClenon:, please link to the article in question when writing on a user talkpage. Also, it is better to keep discussions in one place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-navbox

Template:Uw-navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Slipknot album

Hi, Jax (please don't arrest me, TSA officials)! I like that you thanked me for my edit in 2019 in heavy metal music. That's really nice, you're welcome! See I'm trying to settle a conflict about whether of not the upcoming Slipknot album should be moved to the "August" section before its title is announced. I keep reverting it back to the "Artists with material in production" section but those unknown contributors keep insisting that it goes to the "August" section. So could you please help me and semi-protect this article until the upcoming Slipknot album title is revealed? Thanks, and I'll make sure to thank your edits....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @SirZPthundergod9001:, I am not in a position to protect pages. Please visit WP:RFP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits

I would like to say again that I am letting your edit history get to me. I should definitely not be screaming and name-calling at you, or anyone else, in edit summaries. Your intentions are not lacking, but I find that some of what you do really does bother me. Your concerns about my editing and attacks are valid, and I would like to work with you to help us get along better. Would you mind if I offered you a few pointers to help alleviate some of my bigger concerns? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, this is Wikipedia, and you can leave the pointers if you want. I will not always say yes, but more than likely I will listen. This is why I set forth guidelines about tagging. If the tags should not be used, then they need to be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would say some of the biggest ones are:

1. Please do not tag anything that is inside an infobox or article lead. The purpose of infoboxes and leads is to summarize key points that are verified within the bodies of the relevant articles. The only exception is if you are absolutely sure that you've found something within the infobox or lead that is not repeated within the article. For instance, if a {{infobox musical artist}} lists a band member name, and you don't see that name anywhere within the article (which should be as easy as Control-F), then that would be a valid use of {{citation needed}} on an infobox.
2. Please use {{blp sources}} instead of {{refimprove}} on articles that are biographical in nature. This includes articles on groups and bands that are still active or have at least one member who is still alive. This is because of the standards to which information on living people is held (WP:BLP) compared to other content, and it also makes things easier for people who specifically seek out biographical articles to improve (including me).
3. If a discography has unsourced singles, albums, or chart positions, please feel free to run it by me. I have the Joel Whitburn books and access to back issues of Billboard and Radio & Records, all of which are of great value for something like that. Or in the case of a short article like Dylan Scott, check to see if they're verified elsewhere in the article (which should be as simple as Control-F for the single name). If the latter is true, then they don't need to be cited again in the discography.

Can I get you to agree on these three points? I would really appreciate it, and I think it would make things go smoother between you and me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:,

1. I will do my best to remember to "not tag anything that is inside an infobox or article lead".
2. I will do my best to remember to "use {{BLP+}} instead of {{+r}} on articles that are biographical"
3. It is quicker to tag poorly referenced articles than to run them by other people. If I follow the guidelines that I set forth, the tags should not become excessive. I will do my best to see if the information is somewhere in the article, however, looking for something all over a large article might not be reasonable.

Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Where tags

Care to explain this tag? Nothing that you tagged in that sentence seems to require a "where". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, it is helpful to list the nationality of the musician. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jax, don't you think it would have been just as easy to add the person's nationality yourself (which I see you ended up doing) rather then add a tag that you later need to explain why you added it? I wish you would realize Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and not a place to make others do what you think needs to be done when you can be bold and do it yourself. There are many tools available to you where it doesn't look like you're policing articles with drive-by tags or templating editors with warnings. Some actual kindness and courtesy (such as personal messages on a user's talk page or explanations on an article's talk page when you add odd tags to the article) will go a long way in alleviating the complaints you receive. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, I was on a phone when I added {{where}}. The tags can be nominated for deletion if they should not be used. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the tag when appropriately used. Drive-by tagging is inappropriate when one can easily find and add the information. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

If you enjoy editing here you may want to knock this shit off,
Sooner or later you'll either be blocked on the spot or you'll be dragged to ANI where you'll still be blocked anyway.... so do the world a favour and knock it off whilst you have the chance. –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Davey2010:, please post on my page in a civilized and professional manner. WP:DTTR is an essay, WP:NPA is a policy. The professionally written template post to which you linked above is in reference to an edit that was not written in a civilized manner. If the templates are not civilized, they need to be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

" please post on my page in a civilized and professional manner." - That works both ways, Posting newbie templates to veterinarian veteran editors is not civilised or professional,

You've missed my point - The templates are generally for newbies, If you want to "warn" someone then leave a personalised message - It goes a long way,

The templates don't need to be deleted, You just need to stop treating everyone like they're new and stop mass templating everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010: RE Posting newbie templates to veterinarian editors: Yeah, you've got to watch out for those veterinarian editors. They might sic their dogs on you. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN Haha wow!, Facepalm moment right there!, Unfortunately it's not the first time I've made that mistake!, I expect the dogs to be let on me now! :P. –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Yep, here they come! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Davey2010:, I will take your advice under advisement. However, long talk pages can eat into the memory quotas of some individuals. WP:ANI will be long, and that is probably reality. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Floquenbeam has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:MelanieN. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Serial Number 54129:, the comment "maybe you could find time to explain to my grandma how to suck eggs" is not professional nor is it civilized, therefore, the npa template is not out of context for that type of remark. "User talk:MelanieN" is well over 75 kB, and does not have automatic archiving set up, so the archive template is not disruptive nor out of context either. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I need to wade in here before things get out of hand. As Davy suggested, a personal message would be shorter, to the point, and more thoughtful. You may be interested to read User:GreenMeansGo/WP:Death by template. Now, I personally don't think MelanieN's talk page is too big; perhaps it's causing a slowdown on a mobile or a slow PC, but frankly WP:ANI is usually bigger and if you're concerned about archiving about anything, that's what you should focus your efforts on. I am absolutely positive that Floquenbeam was trying to calm the situation down a bit by using humour, since I think it's quite reasonable that an experienced admin knows how to archive their talk page, and that an experienced admin is not going to purposefully insult you (or at least not until you drop a template on their talk page that was, frankly, asking for trouble). You quoted the policy WP:NPA; a closer perusal of that policy says, "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Has my talk page become a cause celebre now? Geez, I can't leave the 'puter for a minute. 0;-D Anyhow, there were several responses to Jax's template at my talk page. All of them were various ways of pointing out (more in edit summaries than in edits) that it was pretty inappropriate for them to post a "let me teach you how to archive" template on my page; as someone pointed out, I already have 53 archives of my talk page. If I choose to keep my talk page content visible for a few months before archiving it, I don't think I am violating any policy. I wasn't offended by the template, more amused - especially by Floquenbeam's response, which was sarcastic but witty, and I sent him a thank for it; to call it a "personal attack" is ridiculous. As I say I wasn't offended, but several people did speak up in an attempt to teach Jax about when and whom to template. However, it appears that Jax is not open to this kind of education and plans to keep doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that by using a personal attack template on Floq's talk page, Jax made a misstatement of fact. The template says that the post in question "didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed." False. It has not been removed from my talk page - and it had better not be. Yet another problem with using canned templates; often they are not only inappropriate but in error.-- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Ritchie333:, @MelanieN:, I do not know the experience level of every editor on Wikipedia. However, I did warn a user multiple times to stop their personal attacks. It is the interpretation of the receiver, not the intent of the speaker which is of concern. The fact that the content is not removed is inconsequential. That being said, I will take WP:DTTR under advisement. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Jax, I used to have the same problem - not knowing who people are, whether they are admins or not, how much experience they have - until a kind person pointed me to WP:Tools/Navigation popups. I have found this tool to be invaluable. If you hover your cursor over the signature or other linked name of a person, it shows you their user rights, their total edits, and how long they have been here - even whether they are male or female if they have identified as such. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I meant to leave an edit summary on EEng's talk, but clicked the wrong button in twinkle: you are not the talk page police. If someone has a long talk page and are active, another user who visits it regularly will likely tell them. You don't need to go around to experienced editors talk pages telling them to archive their talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TonyBallioni:, sorry about that. I guess I will leave be the talk pages of experienced editors, albeit, I did leave a customized message. IMHO, there should be a rule about how long talk pages should be, but that is another discussion for another day. I was told here to use a customized message. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Los Caminantes

Template:Los Caminantes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Aurora RFC Comments

User:Jax 0677 - No, in response to your comments at WP:AN. I am not declining to close the RFC because of observing the conflict of interest policy. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am observing an even higher degree of neutrality than the avoidance of COI. If COI were the only issue, I could close that RFC. As to closing or relisting, my point is that I am not indifferent to the distinction between closing and relisting. RFCs are not relisted. They are closed, even if they are closed as No Consensus. Please re-read the policies on Requests for Comments so as not to make any more good-faith but misinformed requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Lynn Masters

Thank you for creating Lisa's page. Thank you so much!

William

WilliamBenBrooks@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.46.79 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Country music songs

If you see a country music song that you don't think is notable, would you be willing to send it my way? I speak specifically of Talk You Out of It and Night Shift (Jon Pardi song), both of which I was able to expand after seeing you'd tagged them. This is a topic of interest to me, so please feel free to ping or message me when you see a country music article that needs work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, I will try to do that, if I remember. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, also, if "Bubalu" can not be expanded beyond a stub, it should be merged per WP:NSONG. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Janice Griffith listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Janice Griffith. Since you had some involvement with the Janice Griffith redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 24.185.5.61 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Marx

Thank you for using {{blp sources}} instead of {{refimprove}} on a biographical article. Remember that this also applies to actively touring duos/groups/bands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop undoing edits without any justification and without doing any research

Please be bold and verify any facts you believe to be untrue by checking Google yourself before just hitting "undo" on edits without providing any justification whatsoever. I even did all the work for you and provided you with multiple references already: --Nicholas0 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Nicholas0:, @Ponyo:, a navigation box is designed to list existing articles only, not to list every album that an artist has released, nor every subject associated with the title of the navbox, which is the purpose that an infobox would serve. Bold, revert, discuss is a policy stating that while editors should be bold,

Also, please link to the page in question when leaving a message on the talk page of another user. While it is OK to list the album with references on the article page, it should not be added to the navbox until an article exists. The exception to this is a navigation box for a musical ensemble with two or more members. For a navigation box for a musical ensemble with two or more members, listing only the members with articles might falsely lead people to believe that the ensemble is a solo act. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not an actual rule. It is merely a suggestion. Please refer to the instructions in WP:NAVBOX: "Each link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general, text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text." The fact that it states that dead links should be listed in red clearly indicates that items for which there is no article can be included in navboxes. That is how the links would be red. It is therefore readily apparent that navboxes also include items for which there is no article. I don't know where you pulled your invented rule from, but you did not quote anything proving that it is actually a rule. You just invented it and now you want to force everyone else to abide by your own personal preference. That is non-collaborative and your failure to provide any explanation makes your constant unjustified "undoing" resemble edit warring. I have not accused you of it, but providing an edit summary would prevent users from getting such an impression from you.
The only requirement regarding such templates is this: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." I does not state that there must be an article for each item in the navbox, but rather only the subject of the template. This is yet another form of proof that navboxes also include items for which there are no pages, though this should already be readily apparent from the multitude of navboxes including items without pages.
This item is very likely to be developed into an article, which justifies its inclusion: "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." I did not include a red link, since that is to be avoided (although it could technically be included), but rather included the information in the correct way using black text to indicate that there is not yet any page for it. That is the best balance. There are articles for all of his other albums so it can be assumed that an article will be created for this one as well. You could be bold and make such a page if you have such a problem with black text in the navbox, but you cannot just make up a rule and then enforce it without ever telling anyone what you are doing, without giving any justification, and without leaving any edit summary. Leaving an edit summary is a very basic concept of Wikipedia. If you need help, please refer to Help:Edit summary.
Nicholas0 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Nicholas0:, if you read the edit summaries carefully, you will see that links to WP:WTAF and WP:BRD were included. WP:WTAF indicates that the album added did not have an article, and WP:BRD indicates that because there was a reversion due to objection to adding the album, that adding the album needs to be discussed. Also, on a talk page, please format the web pages as URLs and not references with reference tags.
• @Ponyo:, thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific input with regard to the content dispute itself; my message to Nicholas0 was directly related to concerns regarding their ability to edit collaboratively. I would have responded on their talk page, but no one should be expected to read through a wall of text such as this (which is moot given that they blanked the whole conversation before I could respond) all of which just reinforces my concerns regarding civility and collaboration. It looked like some headway was being made above, but this edit summary doesn't give me much hope. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC". Since you had some involvement with the "Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Janice Griffith

Hello, Jax 0677,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Akhiljaxxn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Janice Griffith for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a consensus decision to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Akhiljaxxn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Akhiljaxxn:, the article was very recently voted keep here. I have notified the deleting administrator. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 United States Border closure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 United States Border closure is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 United States Border closure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Navigational templates belonging to categories

Hi! I'm a bit confused about this revert here. Doesn't the navigational template on HPD belong in the category about HPD?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @WhisperToMe:, I have been told that the only categories in a navbox should be template categories. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the whisper back! I was trying to see if there were guidelines on that at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates but I'm having trouble locating them... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @WhisperToMe:, WP:CAT#T. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

State I'm In (album) ‎

What part of "the label does NOT need a citation" do you not understand? The label never needs a citation, since the album itself is always understood the source of that information. (For instance, Dookie is a featured article, and the infobox does not have a citation for the label.) I know this is at least the fifth or sixth goddamn time I've told you this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, I could not find Buddy Cannon or Big Machine Records in the references within the article, whose references were added later. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Trolling?

First: please read Wikipedia:BRD. Discussion / justification is required, not just blind revert without description of changes or/and information on talk page/user talk page. For me: your blind reverts without description [1][2] does not mean anything, this is like trolling. Second: I not added link to template again, only to article - this is no relationship to your "WP:WTAF". I add wikilink per Wikipedia:Be bold and few other guelines, you reverted my edits, please give me a reasons. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Subtropical-man:, please write the article before you link to it. Also, please link to the articles in question when you post to a talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• "WP:WTAF" does not include typical articles, but only lists, redirects, disambig etc. Also, WP:WTAF is only suggestion for the user to create an article before adding a wikilink, this is not rules of the Wikipedia to absolute/ruthless uses and create edit-wars. So, your reverts were unfounded, was enough to inform the user to limit the addition of red wilinks in the future. Simple. Your behavior was inadequate and first reverts without description of changes - had signs of irresponsibility. Remember: never revert edits by experienced users without a description of changes, it is usually treated as a blind revert = like trolling/irresponsibility. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thee Majesty

Template:Thee Majesty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aspects (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

WP:DTTR. And especially don’t use ones that suggest admin go to the teahouse for help. That was an exceedingly stupid choice of actions. Don’t waste both of our time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sergecross73:, WP:CIVIL. Sorry, this is simply a standard template. If you are an admin, you should add a category. If categories are not a big deal, then maybe they should not exist at all. Also, "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Jax 0677}}), so I will be notified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• You've been warned in the past if your over-reliance of templates rather than just fixing the problems yourself. Templating an admin about categories is just straight up a bad judgement call. This is a blatantly bad move in the wrong direction. You need to scale it back. Please let’s not waste both of our time with drawn out ANI discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sergecross73:, what does "if your over-reliance of templates rather than just fixing the problems yourself" mean? I did not know that you are an administrator, nor did I know your experience level nor edit count, so I did not deliberately template a regular nor deliberately template an administrator. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• The high frequency off adding “citation needed”, “link rot”, and any number tag templates instead of fixing the problem yourself through fixing or removing the content yourself. As I said on my talk page, in the time you took to template me, you could have just added a basic song category. And admin or not, we’ve interacted for multiple years now - you obviously know that I’m a long term, experienced editor that doesn’t need a lesson on categories or a trip to the teahouse for basic lessons. Common sense would dictate that I just forgot to add them this once. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sergecross73:, it is difficult to use reflinks on a mobile phone, hence the tags. Sorry for templating you about one forgotten category. However, I try to keep the tags within reason. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Close To The Sun listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Close To The Sun. Since you had some involvement with the Close To The Sun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Your reversion totally ignored the fact that the bulk of the article was a massive copyright violation. I am happy to see that other editors have stepped in, cleaned up the copyright violation, and added enough material to make it a decent stub article, but I confess surprise that an editor with your experience would ignore the copyright problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, when you post on a talk page, please link to the article in question. Just because there is SOME copyright violation, that does not mean that the word is not a valuable redirect search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, Huh? Are you saying you didn't know what I was talking about? How many reversions have you done in the last couple hours. And your subsequent comment makes no sense. Why would you create a redirect if the article is deleted? FTR, the article is here: Make Me Love You (song). S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, I reverted quite a few articles recently, so I had to do some digging. These articles were not deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, I'm trying to have a good-faith discussion with you and you are not contributing in good faith. If I done something recently or in the past to offend you?

  You reverted my G12, and I dropped a note on your talk page just over an hour after it happened mentioning reversion and copyright. You don't have any other reversions of copyright issues recently. I apologize profusely for failing to include a link to the article in question. I honestly thought there would be no confusion but if there was I'm sorry.

  Can we return to the issue? I occasionally see new be editors revert a G12, often because they are clueless about copyright issues. I didn't expect an editor with over 100,000 edits to be unaware of copyright issues. Your reversion didn't mention the copyright issues, so I wanted to understand why you ignored them. People make mistakes, I know I do, for example failing to link to an article, but if I miss tag an article as a G 12, which happens on occasion, I'm more than willing to discuss it. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, the tag should not be used to delete the whole article, unless the article has nothing more than copyrighted information. I mentioned that I undid the article, because the charts, sales and release sections had no copyright violations. I felt that the article was salvageable, which it does seem to be. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, Apparently you aren't willing to answer my question. There are hundreds of open reports to our copyright tool, so I'm going to spend time on them rather than trying to figure out why you ignored the copyright issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, you wrote a lot of things. Can you please re-write the question that you want answered in a concise manner? I reverted the speedy deletion tag, because I thought that the copyrighted information should be deleted, and not the whole entire article. I have tried to address all of your questions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, Why did you undo the G12, then fail to do anything about the copyright problem? You state " I thought that the copyrighted information should be deleted," but you did not delete it. I'm trying to understand why. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, I am not going to go through all of the material in 3 different articles to determine which words are copyrighted, and which words are not. I believed that the articles that had referenced sales figures, chart positions and release dates should not be deleted in their entirety, therefore, I removed the tag, in hopes that the article would be trimmed. The person who placed the G12 tag should have simply removed the copyrighted material or redirected the article to a more suitable title without deleting the whole article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, No, the person who placed the G12 tag (that would be me) cannot "simply remove the copyrighted material". You obviously haven't worked in the copyright area. Copyright issues are typically rolled back, which works fine if there are edits to the article prior to the addition of copyrighted material. Rollback cannot be used if there are no other editors prior to the addition of the material. That means the person doing the tag either has to carefully identify what parts are violations and what parts are not (as you acknowledge, that's a tedious task) or tag as a G12. the reviewing admin can, at their option, go through the tedious steps of teasing out what can be salvaged what should be removed. sometimes they do that, and I applaud them for being willing to go through such work. sometimes they delete the article, and some other editor can start over but without including materials subject to copyright.

  I request that you never take such action again.

  If you see a G 12, and think it is mistaken because the material is not subject to copyright, feel free to revert and explain your reasoning. If you see a G 12, and think some of the material can be salvaged feel free to do that. But if you see a G 12, and conclude some material is subject to copyright but some is not, you are hurting the project by simply removing the tag. Let it go and leave it for an editor who knows what they're doing. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Sphilbrick:, I will take your advice under advisement, but reserve the right to contest G12 on a talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jax 0677, Of course, that is one of the acceptable responses. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)