→Years in music template: the album years |
|||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
::::* The result was no consensus. There was just a suggestion, dude, to prevent future edit wars. A few people like them, most don't. What you're implying is that you have the right to include them anytime you want even if I created it and don't feel they don't provide any navigational benefit. Please provide your interpretation of "no consensus". --<span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
::::* The result was no consensus. There was just a suggestion, dude, to prevent future edit wars. A few people like them, most don't. What you're implying is that you have the right to include them anytime you want even if I created it and don't feel they don't provide any navigational benefit. Please provide your interpretation of "no consensus". --<span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::*Seconded. It was a disappointing close to the discussion, but that aside, "no consensus" isn't a free pass to keep adding it all over, people are still equally allowed to remove it as well. When your additions are challenged, the correct response would be to follow general protocol - [[WP:BRD]] - and open up a discussion about it on the talk page. It would work the same for me too, FYI: If I tried removing it from one that has had years in it for a while, and you challenged it, then it would be up to me to start up a discussion. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::::*Seconded. It was a disappointing close to the discussion, but that aside, "no consensus" isn't a free pass to keep adding it all over, people are still equally allowed to remove it as well. When your additions are challenged, the correct response would be to follow general protocol - [[WP:BRD]] - and open up a discussion about it on the talk page. It would work the same for me too, FYI: If I tried removing it from one that has had years in it for a while, and you challenged it, then it would be up to me to start up a discussion. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::*''' Reply '''- {{ping|Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars}}, {{ping|Sergecross73}}, I needed some time to think about this. I guess unless there is a good reason to include the year [i.e. {{tl|Killswitch Engage}}], I will follow your suggestion, at least for now, and will only add |
::::::*''' Reply '''- {{ping|Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars}}, {{ping|Sergecross73}}, I needed some time to think about this. I guess unless there is a good reason to include the year [i.e. {{tl|Killswitch Engage}}], I will follow your suggestion, at least for now, and will only add the album years to music navigation boxes that have years next to albums, music navigation boxes that I already created, or music navigation boxes that I create in the future. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677#top|talk]]) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Clarification needed on "clarification needed" == |
== Clarification needed on "clarification needed" == |
Revision as of 18:03, 9 February 2018
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."
You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Who
I saw you added a {{who}} to an article about a single because the lede didn't indicate the name of the performer. Doesn't that template usually signify a weasel word such as "experts have shown", or such. The link seems to imply that anyhow. I was able to add and wikilink the performer's name, but maybe {{clarify}} would be better suited to this situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Walter Gorlitz:, please link to the article in question when you post on a talk page. I think that {{who}} could be used if we do not know who the person is, but, I have been wrong before. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Doc James:, please link to the article in question when you post on a talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
2018 flu pandemic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 flu pandemic. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 flu pandemic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –MPWikiEdits (questions?) 15:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Ref tags
Just an FYI, when you can see that I'm obviously actively working on some on-going projects (ie things related to Nothing More currently), you don't really need to re-add the link rot tag over and over again. I mean, there's nothing stopped you from doing it, but you're probably going to start irritating the people who go around formatting refs all the time when you do it multiple times a day at the same article. It's not like its an urgent issue that need instant cleanup, like WP:BLP violations or something. It can be done in bulk at the end. Just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Sergecross73:, thank you very much for your email. I guess I might want to keep it to once per week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Anti-Everything" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Anti-Everything". Since you had some involvement with the "Anti-Everything" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to set both the navbox itself at "state=autocollapse" and when you add the template to each article as you just did with {{Daniel Lanois}}. All you have to do is read the {{collapsible option}} you add to every navbox you create: by setting the navbox to "state=autocollapse", it does the same thing as if you set the template on each page with {{Daniel Lanois|state=autocollapse}}, which means you "autocollapsing" twice for no reason. That's the purpose for the collapsible option in the first place. For a guy who does not like to waste keystrokes, I'm surprised you would giving extra work for yourself. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, thank you for letting me know. I copy from the line "|state=autocollapse: {{Daniel Lanois|state=autocollapse}}", then paste that into articles, which is easier than typing the brackets by myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you put in the "state=autocollapse" into individual articles when adding the navbox. By setting the template to "state = autocollapse" (or more simply "state=autocollapse") that is the equivalent of adding the navbox to an article with that parameter. In fact, you don't even have to include the "state" parameter at all in the navbox template, because that is the default anyway. So for example, in {{Legendary Shack Shakers}}, you don't need "state = autocollapse" in the template itself or to include "state=autocollapse" (i.e. {{Legendary Shack Shakers|state=autocollapse}}) to individual articles, and in fact that defeats the entire purpose of having the "state" parameter in the template in the first place. All you are copying is the example of what the "autocollapse" setting does, not how it is supposed to look in articles. Just stop adding the "autocollapse" option to both navbox templates and individual articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, I think you are being nitpicky. Having "state=autocollapse" in both the navbox and article serves the same purpose as having it only in the navbox. It is easier to copy and paste from the text on the template page than it is to manually type the brackets. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you are the laziest editor on Wikipedia and do things in the best interest of yourself instead of the encyclopedia even if it just means a couple of keystrokes in one article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, WP:CIVIL. How exactly are my edits "in the best interest of [myself]", and how do they not benefit the encyclopedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- You have a long history of annoying other editors including multiple ANIs and numerous complaints on your talk pages because you'd rather do things your way over what's best. How does creating more work for others by you doing the most minimal amount of work help anyone, especially readers? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, using words such as "moron", "lazy" and "half-ass" are also annoying. The term "annoying other editors" is a point of contention. To the best of my recollection, I have only had about 3 ANIs (one of them successful) in just over one decade. In recent history, I have created hundreds of acceptable navigation templates which assist readers in migrating between articles, and have made several articles about musicians and musical ensembles. Furthermore, you have not proven that my edits are "in the best interest of [myself]", nor have you proven that they do not benefit the encyclopedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you are the laziest editor on Wikipedia and do things in the best interest of yourself instead of the encyclopedia even if it just means a couple of keystrokes in one article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
+X listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect +X. Since you had some involvement with the +X redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Zawl 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Straight from the Barrio
I'm just going to repeat my request to you from last October here, because you seem to have forgotten about it. I asked you to stop simply copying and pasting chart info from an artist's discography page to a new article. Will I realized and everyone knows you are too lazy any effort into reformatting, the least you can do when creating a new article is check/confirm the sources and update the access dates on the citations. How can an article created in January 2018 use sources that says they were accessed in 2016? This tells me you are not verifying the info, which falls on you as the author. If you can't be bothered to do the simplest things, you might as well not do it at all. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, as I think I have mentioned before, it is courteous to link to the article in question (Straight from the Barrio) when you post on a talk page. The access date for the reference was dated after the album was released, therefore, the reference is not completely out of date, and the peak chart positions were correct. Also, "Will I realized and everyone knows you are too lazy any effort into reformatting" is not proper grammar, so please use proper grammar when posting. As I mentioned before, "According to WP:IDEALSTUB, I need only provide sufficient context for the information". Furthermore, this edit is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Finally, why was the release date AND RECORD LABEL removed from the article without justification? This also happened at Pop Evil. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just do a better job and no one would complain about your work. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, same for you. BTW, the label and release date are still missing from Straight from the Barrio. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then create an infobox where that information can then be easily found by readers. Be useful for once and do something that benefits Wikipedia. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply -@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, same for you. Per WP:IDEALSTUB, creating stub articles is useful, and I have been useful to Wikipedia on multiple occasions. Deleting release dates and record label information without justification is not useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also requesting that you stop doing this. You did the same thing to an article I recently created, and even after you "cleaned it up", it still was sloppily done and featured a list of a bunch of charts that it didn't even chart on. Not only does it look sloppy, but it's not even necessary - if a band/artist has its own discography article, and the respective single has its own article, song listings don't need to be listed at all, let alone like this. The chart positions should just be listed at the song article, which it already is. Now, counting the October discussion Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars listed above, that's now 3 people who oppose you doing it like this. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Sergecross73:, please do not use a pronoun without being clear about the thing to which you are referring (exactly what you would like for me to do differently). Many articles have information about its singles, and also have chart information for the album. If I do not have the skill set to list the chart positions in the exact different format that is ideal, WP:IDEALSTUB permits me to place the info in the article in a reasonable manner that conveys the information. The access date in question was after the release date of the album, which means that it is accurate enough. I was editing from a mobile phone when I edited Ember. Legitimate information about albums is being removed from articles without justification. In some cases, I am pasting the information in the easiest manner that I know how, then whittling away at it piece by piece, so that the table does not look disfigured. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't have the "skill set" to do charts right, then don't do it. Simple as that. Wait for someone else to do it right. Because right now, you're not only wasting your time in doing it wrong, you're wasting other's time by creating a mess to cleanup or delete. It's a net loss for everyone involved.
- To illustrate in the most specific way possible, let's look at the Breaking Benjamin situation.
- You made this change, adding a singles chart at their album article Ember. Stop doing this, and similar edits to it.
- It is unnecessary because it is redundant. The chart is already present at Breaking Benjamin discography and "Red Cold River", the song's article. (and properly formatted at Red Cold River, for that matter.) We don't need to list the charts in a third place.
- Your chart was poorly done. Look at it again. You added six charts, even though it only charted on two. You added charts like the Canadian Hot 100, and the US Pop 100, where the song has not charted. If the song did not chart on these charts, they should not be listed. Don't do this.
- I hope this version was more clear. I didn't think I needed to go into such detail when you've been talked to about this before. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Sergecross73:, I have added chart information to Outline in Color, but this information has not yet been formatted into a chart. Is it acceptable to list the information using "text"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. Charts would be fine too, since there's no band discography article. But just text like that is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of 2018 government shitdown
A tag has been placed on 2018 government shitdown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jax 0677, thanks for your work. I'm troubled by some redirects you've created that include the phrase "government shitdown" in the title. There are no reliable sources that use that term and seems incredibly implausible as a typo, but Der Trutinator has noted that because those redirects exist, the search bar suggests those search terms. I'd be glad to hear your reasons for those redirects, but I am hoping that you will agree to G7 them. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
2013 government shitdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2013 government shitdown. Since you had some involvement with the 2013 government shitdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SkyWarrior 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Anna Turpin listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anna Turpin. Since you had some involvement with the Anna Turpin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
EDMXXL listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EDMXXL. Since you had some involvement with the EDMXXL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Shitdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shitdown. Since you had some involvement with the Shitdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Government shitdown
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
2018 government shutdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 government shutdown. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 government shutdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Government Shitdown
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Years in music template
As I mentioned here, it probably doesn't make sense to keep adding years to templates at this time. I know that the discussion isn't closed yet, but right now there's 8 against, 2 in support, and 2 who are basically "Maybe/Sometimes". It's been running for 2 weeks, there's been a lot of participation from a number of editors, and input has been slowing down - at this rate, you're going to be hard-pressed to find any other consensus other than "don't add years". Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Sergecross73:, I have added a notice at WP:ANFRC, the discussion is not a vote, so until a decision is made, I am within my right to add years, as Killswitch Engage has two albums with the same title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well aware of NOTAVOTE, you don't need to explain the basics to me. But think logically about the nature of the RFC, and the responses it has gotten. There hasn't been a single invalid argument cast. You may disagree with their stances, but they're not the type of thing that can just be discounted, like at AFD, where someone says "Keep the article because I like it" or something. You're just regurgitating policy without actually thinking about the context of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since no consensus was reached on this topic at this time, you should only add years to navboxes you create and I will refrain from removing them from existing ones that have them. So if I create some without years, you shouldn't add them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, your statement is not listed in [the final decision], and if it is, you need to show me that. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- The result was no consensus. There was just a suggestion, dude, to prevent future edit wars. A few people like them, most don't. What you're implying is that you have the right to include them anytime you want even if I created it and don't feel they don't provide any navigational benefit. Please provide your interpretation of "no consensus". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Seconded. It was a disappointing close to the discussion, but that aside, "no consensus" isn't a free pass to keep adding it all over, people are still equally allowed to remove it as well. When your additions are challenged, the correct response would be to follow general protocol - WP:BRD - and open up a discussion about it on the talk page. It would work the same for me too, FYI: If I tried removing it from one that has had years in it for a while, and you challenged it, then it would be up to me to start up a discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, @Sergecross73:, I needed some time to think about this. I guess unless there is a good reason to include the year [i.e. {{Killswitch Engage}}], I will follow your suggestion, at least for now, and will only add the album years to music navigation boxes that have years next to albums, music navigation boxes that I already created, or music navigation boxes that I create in the future. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well aware of NOTAVOTE, you don't need to explain the basics to me. But think logically about the nature of the RFC, and the responses it has gotten. There hasn't been a single invalid argument cast. You may disagree with their stances, but they're not the type of thing that can just be discounted, like at AFD, where someone says "Keep the article because I like it" or something. You're just regurgitating policy without actually thinking about the context of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Clarification needed on "clarification needed"
What seems to be the problem here? I'd be happy to clarify, but it already appears clear to me. Maybe "Fourteen other people were shot, three of them critically wounded; four more hurt themselves fleeing."? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @InedibleHulk:,
"Eighteen other people were injured, fourteen by bullets and three critically" means 18 > 14 + 3. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- No. It means of the eighteen who were injured and lived, fourteen were injured by bullets and three were injured critically. Division, not addition. The three critically injured were presumably also shot, since it's quite hard to almost kill yourself by accidentally running into something or falling from your own height. It used to use a comma instead of an "and". Would removing "and" imply less of a "plus" vibe to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
Can you unblock please
- @MakaveliReed:, I am not in a position to unblock anyone. Please visit WP:BLOCK for more information about requesting an unblock. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Link rot
Stop tagging pages with link rot when there is only a single citation that has a bare url. It's not helpful. It is much quicker to fix the link rot for one cite than it is to tag it with link rot. Either fix it or don't do anything at all. --‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @El cid, el campeador:, per WP:PLRT, "As you edit, if an article has bare URLs in its citations, fix them or at least tag the References section with {{linkrot}} as a reminder to complete citation details as above, and to categorize the article as needing cleanup". Additionally, it was discussed here that if "I am editing from a mobile phone", I may apply {{LR}} to an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
I'll take some time out to read everything and will let you know if I have any questions. Best wishes. LXV (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)