User talk:Koavf/Archive057
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Talk:Wanted For Life
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Why did you post that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Because you have a history of edit warring on items you have no support on, nor prepared to offer valid reason for your stance. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, Did you read the proper steps of the dispute resolution process before posting? Did you explore those steps as required by the documentation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Because you have a history of edit warring on items you have no support on, nor prepared to offer valid reason for your stance. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 23:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indie pop remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Indie pop remix albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pop punk remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Pop punk remix albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Xsaorapa
Hello Koavf, I would like to know your decision regarding this. Thank you. --Xsaorapa (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, ? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just saw what was happening on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, noticed you (both) weren't notified of DS, and did so for both you and Davey. As usual, this doesn't imply any issues with your contribs. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Okay, thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just saw what was happening on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, noticed you (both) weren't notified of DS, and did so for both you and Davey. As usual, this doesn't imply any issues with your contribs. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Longevity pages
The longevity pages follow strict special guidelines which you can find on any of the “talk pages.” You are in violation of going against an agreed upon standard of uniformity by consensus. Furthermore, your edits add nothing of value to the page and can be reverted for that reason alone. If you do not desist in edit warring once again, I am sending you back to ANI for further actionTFBCT1 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- TFBCT1, I would be very interested to see you post to ANI saying that you are removing basic accessibility features that are required on all pages per MOS:COLOR and MOS:TABLECAPTION. Are you threatening to do that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am telling you that you are going against consensus and furthermore leaving the page “out of order” with margins in error and not updated. You clearly know nothing about the longevity pages- your skills would be better used elsewhere. Someone else will revert your edits if not me.TFBCT1 (talk)
- @TFBCT1: Why are you posting this thread here instead of responding at your talk where I initiated? As I asked there: "Did you read MOS:COLOR and MOS:TABLECAPTION? I need to know if you are flagrantly vandalizing the encyclopedia and know better or if you are flagrantly vandalizing it and don't know better before I move forward with contacting an administrator." Do you understand that local consensus does not override the MoS on accessibility? Please answer these questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am telling you that you are going against consensus and furthermore leaving the page “out of order” with margins in error and not updated. You clearly know nothing about the longevity pages- your skills would be better used elsewhere. Someone else will revert your edits if not me.TFBCT1 (talk)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Inlet (album) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Songs written by Terry Callier
A couple of things, firstly you have never objected to me making this change before on songwriter cats you have created. secondly, there is now only one songwriter cat that isn't in the same format. Under those circumstances, perhaps you would like to review your edit. Otherwise admin might think you are deliberately making yourself a nuisance, and we know that isn't true, don't we? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, 1.) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and 2. Not true. E.g. I immediately know of Category:Songs written by Natalie Merchant. Maybe someone here is being a nuisance but it's not me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Deaths from cardiac arrest has been nominated for deletion
Category:Deaths from cardiac arrest has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Saterland Frisian language has been nominated for deletion
Category:Saterland Frisian language has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acid rock video albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Acid rock video albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Justin, do you want to look at this when you have time? I think reFill is being worked on today...it is really the only tool I've used, aside from the defunct Reflinks, for references. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, I watch that page, so I saw the edit, thanks. What is it you need from me? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing, just wanted to point it out, I know you were concerned about the refs for the Kinney article, even aside from the weird reFill quirk. Caro7200 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, Oh yes, this edit is much more accurate. I appreciate you surfacing this to me. I'll probably revise it still (e.g. take out the ALL CAPS, convert dates to American style, include lang=) but it's not incorrect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing, just wanted to point it out, I know you were concerned about the refs for the Kinney article, even aside from the weird reFill quirk. Caro7200 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Capitalization of "Black"
Well, if it isn't part of your MOS, it should be, don't you think? - Jasonbres (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Jasonbres, Let's respond to the thread that I already made on your talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1665 introductions
A tag has been placed on Category:1665 introductions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Category:Pope Francis albums has been nominated for deletion
Category:Pope Francis albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Category:Studio albums by year
Hello Koavf. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Category:Studio albums by year, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No reason given. Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Why would you do that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- You provided no reason for deletion.
- An aside: FYI, manually tagging empty categories is unneeded. Once it's empty, User:QEDKbot will automatically tag and, after one week, delete them. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, Well, I think it's better to tag them now per the discussion of them but yes, it's nice that a bot can come along and do the work later if no one else sees the empty categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sacred Bones Records EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:Sacred Bones Records EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hut Records remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Hut Records remix albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
message about talk page
Dear Koavf, please would you very kindly respond to my comment on this talk page.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eutopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Accords (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
3RR violation
As you've broken 3RR, a report has been filed at WP:3RRN. Number 57 10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Number 57, In response to your specious claim at the 3RRN: And yet, you didn't report Aréat. Also, you didn't explain why this one table is somehow immune to the explicit rule voted on by the community that all data tables must have captions. It doesn't matter if they are about elections or if there are h2 headers with the same text, or if you think that screen readers should be able to understand semantics that mean one thing to mean a different thing: all data tables must have captions. You know this and yet you removed it. Why do you think that your actions are justified? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Site wide block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 12:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, When users repeatedly remove accessibility features in the future, what do you recommend I do differently? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss the matter further to reach consensus — get outside input if you otherwise reach an impasse. But no exemption was provided nor invoked. El_C 12:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, I did invoke one at the noticeboard. There are millions of data tables here and there is already a sitewide consensus that hey should all have captions. Obviously, I cannot patiently ask every person to please obey the rules for basic accessibility over and over again and it's also not effective as you can see at User talk:Aréat. He reverted four times to remove basic accessibility and showed neither a comprehension or interest in comprehending accessibility. What should I have done then? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, And are you going to block User:Aréat as well? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the evidence shows them to have reverted four times, Aréat is also likely to be sanctioned. You are free to provide that evidence here by showing the previous version reverted to for their earliest corresponding listed diff. As for expanding the scope of WP:3RRNO, you are welcome to work toward that once this block expires. El_C 12:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, A I pointed out at the noticedboard:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952453&oldid=967952257
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952920&oldid=967952592
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953416&oldid=967953070
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953757&oldid=967953528
- all undo work that I did with this edit and reverted to a version at this timestamp. The edit summaries all explicitly say that he's undoing my work four times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is not what I asked for. I asked for the previous version reverted to that corresponds to the earliest diff. I want to be able to tell whether it was a revert or just a bold edit. El_C 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Part of my response above includes "reverted to a version at this timestamp": each of the edits in the list I gave you above undoes an edit in order to revert to content at that version. I don't understand what more you want. I edited the article when it looked like this and the other user reverted my work back to that version in whole or in part four times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I want a version earlier than the earliest diff that demonstrates there was a revert rather than just a bold edit. An edit by someone in particular and not just changes to longstanding text would be necessary for that. El_C 12:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, The version I linked is earlier than the earliest diff. What are you talking about? He undid my work four times and reverted back to 05:25:44 at 05:28:03: "Not the usual table", using Undo; 05:32:56: "Previous table was accessible", using Undo (it's not accessible, of course); 05:37:25: "Don't make unilateral changes" (the changes are not unilateral, of course--there was an RfC on this); and 05:40:23: "I disagree", using Undo. These are four reverts--three using "Undo"--all after the timestamp that I gave you. I don't understand what's not being communicated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see it now. Will sanction. El_C 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, No worries--we all make mistakes. I'll use this time to craft what I think is useful language for a 3RR proposal as you mentioned above. Please also give feedback on the question I asked here. Thanks again--unfortunate circumstances but it's always professional and courteous interacting with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Justin. I appreciate your patience. Your tone and tenor while blocked is, once again, refreshing and to be commended. Good luck with the proposal. Regards, El_C 13:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, No worries--we all make mistakes. I'll use this time to craft what I think is useful language for a 3RR proposal as you mentioned above. Please also give feedback on the question I asked here. Thanks again--unfortunate circumstances but it's always professional and courteous interacting with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see it now. Will sanction. El_C 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, The version I linked is earlier than the earliest diff. What are you talking about? He undid my work four times and reverted back to 05:25:44 at 05:28:03: "Not the usual table", using Undo; 05:32:56: "Previous table was accessible", using Undo (it's not accessible, of course); 05:37:25: "Don't make unilateral changes" (the changes are not unilateral, of course--there was an RfC on this); and 05:40:23: "I disagree", using Undo. These are four reverts--three using "Undo"--all after the timestamp that I gave you. I don't understand what's not being communicated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I want a version earlier than the earliest diff that demonstrates there was a revert rather than just a bold edit. An edit by someone in particular and not just changes to longstanding text would be necessary for that. El_C 12:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Part of my response above includes "reverted to a version at this timestamp": each of the edits in the list I gave you above undoes an edit in order to revert to content at that version. I don't understand what more you want. I edited the article when it looked like this and the other user reverted my work back to that version in whole or in part four times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is not what I asked for. I asked for the previous version reverted to that corresponds to the earliest diff. I want to be able to tell whether it was a revert or just a bold edit. El_C 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, A I pointed out at the noticedboard:
- If the evidence shows them to have reverted four times, Aréat is also likely to be sanctioned. You are free to provide that evidence here by showing the previous version reverted to for their earliest corresponding listed diff. As for expanding the scope of WP:3RRNO, you are welcome to work toward that once this block expires. El_C 12:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, the moral of this story is: when you find yourself confronted by something you consider a serious problem, call the cavalry. Nobody wants to be "the guy who blocked Justin". Guy (help!) 13:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Sure but can you appreciate the mammoth amount of overhead here? How many times do I need to get third parties over and over again to say, "When MOS:TABLECAPTION says all data tables need captions, that means that all data tables need captions"? My interactions with Aréat and Number 57 are hardly one-offs: I see this same intransigence and willful hostility to users with disabilities all the time. If someone just removed alt text from articles and his rationale was something irrelevant and selfish like, "I don't like it" or "I don't know what this is--it's weird" or "Most images don't have alt text", am I supposed to make dozens and dozens of talk page posts saying don't do this? These aren't hypothetical or rhetorical questions: I'm genuinely asking. @El C:. How many thousands of times am I supposed to have this same conversation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know — as many as it takes for the point to be driven...? Again, my evaluation was rather narrow in that I only looked at WP:3RRNO. I am bound to the supremacy of 3RR in content disputes as an admin enforcing that bright line rule, just as you are bound to it as an editor who is expected to adhere to it. Regardless of whether I like it or not. Which, of course, I do not. El_C 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like the situation has been resolved, so is the block still necessary? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: Following from Mr Ernie's question, I would be happy to encourage you to unblock Aréat if he agrees that he will not edit war on that article to remove required accessibility features. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, decline. On this occasion, I'd actually rather another admin take over unblock requests here and there. El_C 17:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Sounds good and it's not like it's my decision anyway. Just suggesting my perspective. Aréat for what it's worth, if you do decide to post on your talk requesting an unblock and you think it's at all relevant, please do direct anyone here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Justin, in this instance, I am fine with the reviewing admin acting as they see fit, without needing to consult me in any way whatsoever. El_C 19:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Sounds good and it's not like it's my decision anyway. Just suggesting my perspective. Aréat for what it's worth, if you do decide to post on your talk requesting an unblock and you think it's at all relevant, please do direct anyone here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, decline. On this occasion, I'd actually rather another admin take over unblock requests here and there. El_C 17:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: Following from Mr Ernie's question, I would be happy to encourage you to unblock Aréat if he agrees that he will not edit war on that article to remove required accessibility features. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like the situation has been resolved, so is the block still necessary? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, don't interpret it as hostility to users with disabilities, instead consider that they just don't understand why it's an issue. Guy (help!) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Ignorance is understandable. I try to not be the one who escalates and if someone just doesn't get stuff, I hope that I'm not aggressive or rude. But when someone is willfully ignorant or responds to "This is what others need" with "But I don't like it", then I have a hard time being a nice person at that point. It's frankly outrageous and such a disservice to the disability community and WMF values to respond to basic accessibility guidelines with a "nuh-uh, don't wanna". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Some people have an easier time "hearing" that their initial belief is wrong when three people say the same thing once, instead of one person saying it three times. I hope that you will have many more opportunities to educate editors about table captions and scopes. But next time, please drop by WT:ACCESS or ping one of the other editors who understand this area and ask for someone else to say it if your first explanation doesn't seem to have the desired effect. There's no need for you to handle this all by yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Thanks as well--this may end up with less overhead in the long run but it's a frustrating circumstance. Anyway, off to other projects and to craft a proposal for the relevant Wikipedia project namespace pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Some people have an easier time "hearing" that their initial belief is wrong when three people say the same thing once, instead of one person saying it three times. I hope that you will have many more opportunities to educate editors about table captions and scopes. But next time, please drop by WT:ACCESS or ping one of the other editors who understand this area and ask for someone else to say it if your first explanation doesn't seem to have the desired effect. There's no need for you to handle this all by yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Ignorance is understandable. I try to not be the one who escalates and if someone just doesn't get stuff, I hope that I'm not aggressive or rude. But when someone is willfully ignorant or responds to "This is what others need" with "But I don't like it", then I have a hard time being a nice person at that point. It's frankly outrageous and such a disservice to the disability community and WMF values to respond to basic accessibility guidelines with a "nuh-uh, don't wanna". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know — as many as it takes for the point to be driven...? Again, my evaluation was rather narrow in that I only looked at WP:3RRNO. I am bound to the supremacy of 3RR in content disputes as an admin enforcing that bright line rule, just as you are bound to it as an editor who is expected to adhere to it. Regardless of whether I like it or not. Which, of course, I do not. El_C 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Sure but can you appreciate the mammoth amount of overhead here? How many times do I need to get third parties over and over again to say, "When MOS:TABLECAPTION says all data tables need captions, that means that all data tables need captions"? My interactions with Aréat and Number 57 are hardly one-offs: I see this same intransigence and willful hostility to users with disabilities all the time. If someone just removed alt text from articles and his rationale was something irrelevant and selfish like, "I don't like it" or "I don't know what this is--it's weird" or "Most images don't have alt text", am I supposed to make dozens and dozens of talk page posts saying don't do this? These aren't hypothetical or rhetorical questions: I'm genuinely asking. @El C:. How many thousands of times am I supposed to have this same conversation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss the matter further to reach consensus — get outside input if you otherwise reach an impasse. But no exemption was provided nor invoked. El_C 12:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Declino EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:Declino EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carefree, Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trade paperback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request
Koavf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, I am making a case "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead;" I propose the following actions that I'll undertake once I'm unblocked to be more constructive in my disagreements rather than resorting to a personality-based approach to resolving editing disputes via reverting: *In regards to adding/removing accessibility features, I will: post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility to see if there are other users interested in monitoring these types of edits and if/when a dispute occurs, reach out to other interested editors; *propose changes to welcome templates and add warning templates that direct users to the appropriate accessibility guidelines and succinctly explain why they are necessary in an effort to convince them to abide by the existing consensus(es) around accessibility; *and propose at WP:VANDALISM that the removal of accessibility features should be considered vandalism, thus allowing users to revert or use rollback (which I did not do in this case) as necessary for users who refuse to abide and this will make a stronger case for posting to places that will get admins' attention such as WP:AIV. Thus, rather than engage in a personal war of attrition, I will get community support for my actions and as others have solicited on this page, engage them as third parties. I request to be unblocked so that I can continue being a contributing member of this community. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Deactivating unblock request, as @Ivanvector: has already unblocked this account. — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: purely out of collegiality and visibility, tho note above that he said he's not going to take the lead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: What is the typical wait time for these requests? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C and JzG: I'm inclined to accept this request. Seeking feedback from the relevant sub-communities is a very positive step, especially on the characterization of accessibility-breaking edits as vandalism, if they follow through on that commitment. Their block log doesn't give me a lot of confidence, though: by my count this is their twentieth block for edit warring, and they've already been through an Arbcom case over it. Do you have any further thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, Can you please revert this vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jraifia&diff=0&oldid=890677755 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I don't really have a strong opinion on unblocking. I'm leaving that at your discretion. That said, I am a bit concerned with the perplexing influx in 3RR violations lately by Justin. Which is why the block was for 2 weeks and sitewide. El_C 19:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, procedurally, normally we wait for the blocking admin (to avoid the appearance of a wheel war). If El_C doesn't drop by in the next few hours, I'll do it. Guy (help!) 08:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- ??? El_C 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies to everyone, I said I would do it and then someone set the office alarm on me, and in the panic and after-dinner chores I just completely forgot about the whole thing. I'll unblock momentarily. El C, I thought your two weeks block was quite generous considering the block log, it would have been an indef and a discussion about how severe of restrictions to tie to an unblock had I got there first. But I think we all agree that we're past that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- ??? El_C 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Unblocked; I edit-conflicted with Xaosflux deactivating the request. Just as a parting note, please remember that our definition of vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" (emphasis in original), and that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism" (emphasis in original). If an editor makes a good-faith edit to improve a page and also accidentally breaks an accessibility feature, this is not vandalism, according to the current definition, though in my opinion you would be correct to repair or revert the edit and try to discuss with the user. In my opinion, an editor removing accessibility features maliciously is a vandal and should be reverted, but I think you would be wise to confirm this with the discussion you proposed in your third bullet before taking it upon yourself to revert. If you find yourself in such a dispute please feel free to ping me any time, although I think our time zones don't line up well; I'm also going to watchlist the WikiProject Accessiblity front page, I assume their talk page can serve as a sort of informal noticeboard. Best, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Inlet (album)
On 23 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inlet (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American space rock band Hum released Inlet, their first album in 22 years, as a surprise on June 23? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inlet (album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inlet (album)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I am sorry
I am very sorry for did a wrong thing on this page Steve Pruitt. I thought this birthday is true, but it needs verification. I will not do that again. Rdp060707 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Rdp060707, No worries: everyone makes mistakes. Also, it's a subtle distinction: we are looking not for what is true but what is verifiable. So it can be confusing and if you need any help, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:9xdead albums
A tag has been placed on Category:9xdead albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Little Shop
Hi. I am in favor of removing less prestigious awards from awards tables, but you removed two of the *most* presitigious ones. The Olivier Awards are the British Tonys. We should get rid of the newspaper awards and things like Drama League and Critics Circle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, Did I remove anything from that table that included a source? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most awards tables have no sources. The sources for the important awards should be in the text of the article above, and they are! Apparently, you didn't even look. The reason that the stupid awards are referenced directly in the table is that they are so unimportant that they are not even mentioned in the text of the article, and the people insisting on putting them in table knew that they'd need a ref to defend their poor choice to include them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, Everything needs a reference. If Claim A is supported by a reference at Claim B, then you should reuse that reference with code like <ref name="source1">...</ref> and <ref name="source1" />. It's not acceptable that "most awards tables have no sources". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- You do not have your eye on the ball. This material is sourced in the article, and you are not even attempting to understand what is important in the article and what is not. That does not bode well for the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I think *you* may not have your eye on the ball as you didn't understand why I removed what I removed. I don't have any opinion on awards being prestigious or not: I am removing unsourced material per WP:V, which is a bedrock policy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:V says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. ... If you think the material is verifiable, YOU are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I am encouraged to look for sources but you are obliged to add them: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, the information that you removed was almost certain to be true and correct; I cannot remember anyone actually adding wrong information to these sorts of award tables in the Theatre Project. Even if you did not know that you were removing some of the most important information from the table, you could have added a cite needed tag. Your impulse to destroy the table was absolutely wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I have no doubt it was correct but see two threads above on this page: WP:V is about verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is one of three core content policies, along with WP:OR, which is also relevant here. We cannot add unsourced information to Wikipedia. Saying, "It's likely true, therefore it doesn't need a source" or "There is a source, just not with the claim" is unacceptable. I almost never add citation needed tags because I don't see value in that and unsourced information should be removed aggressively. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- What? I just looked at Little_Shop_of_Horrors_(musical)#Awards_and_nominations and you just reverted all of my changes, including adding table semantics. Why would you do that in violation of MOS:TABLECAPTION? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I have no doubt it was correct but see two threads above on this page: WP:V is about verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is one of three core content policies, along with WP:OR, which is also relevant here. We cannot add unsourced information to Wikipedia. Saying, "It's likely true, therefore it doesn't need a source" or "There is a source, just not with the claim" is unacceptable. I almost never add citation needed tags because I don't see value in that and unsourced information should be removed aggressively. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, the information that you removed was almost certain to be true and correct; I cannot remember anyone actually adding wrong information to these sorts of award tables in the Theatre Project. Even if you did not know that you were removing some of the most important information from the table, you could have added a cite needed tag. Your impulse to destroy the table was absolutely wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I am encouraged to look for sources but you are obliged to add them: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:V says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. ... If you think the material is verifiable, YOU are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, I think *you* may not have your eye on the ball as you didn't understand why I removed what I removed. I don't have any opinion on awards being prestigious or not: I am removing unsourced material per WP:V, which is a bedrock policy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- You do not have your eye on the ball. This material is sourced in the article, and you are not even attempting to understand what is important in the article and what is not. That does not bode well for the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, Everything needs a reference. If Claim A is supported by a reference at Claim B, then you should reuse that reference with code like <ref name="source1">...</ref> and <ref name="source1" />. It's not acceptable that "most awards tables have no sources". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most awards tables have no sources. The sources for the important awards should be in the text of the article above, and they are! Apparently, you didn't even look. The reason that the stupid awards are referenced directly in the table is that they are so unimportant that they are not even mentioned in the text of the article, and the people insisting on putting them in table knew that they'd need a ref to defend their poor choice to include them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I added refs to the table. If you want to change the table format, that is fine with me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers, That doesn't answer my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
not sure if you are aware, but anything with a navbox-title class is invisible on mobile. so this addition will be invisible on mobile. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Frietjes, I am not aware of that, thank you: I don't have a smartphone or tablet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Negazione EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:Negazione EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Advice sought
Hey Koavf,
I know we've never interacted before, but I thought I'd ask for an administrator's advice in regards to this issue. I created this page and as seen with this edit and this edit, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars keeps removing the 2020 albums category (despite it being a standard category to include amongst album articles for albums released in 2020). I'm unsure as to why he keeps doing it, and I'm not going to restore it in order to comply with WP:3RR and WP:Edit war guidelines. Any chance you could help out?
Also, if there are any improvements you think could be made to the article, please let me know. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
(Please ping me when you reply 🙂) Sean Stephens (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sean Stephens, Sean, thanks for saying hi. To be clear, I'm not an admin. And I've interacted with Star... many times; even when he and I have disagreed, it's been pretty positive, so talking to him directly, seems like a good course of action. Have you seen Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the recommended steps there? All that said, to use this example, all articles in Category:Indie rock albums by Australian artists are already in subcategories of Category:Indie rock albums, Category:Rock albums, and Category:Rock albums by Australian artists, so no article should be in all of those. Let me know how else I can help and I'm happy to have you around. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! Wasn't aware that you weren't an admin, easy mistake to make I guess given your high edit count! I've had a look through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and it's very useful information, so thank you for providing a link to that.
- I wasn't aware that inserting certain album subcategories into articles means that the album automatically populates the larger categories (which the subcategories themselves belong to). That's good to know. I've just noticed that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has explained why he removed the category on the article's talk page, which also explains why he removed the other categories.
- Thank you very much for your help, I truly appreciate it! Have a great day/night! —Sean Stephens (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sean Stephens, Happy to help, Sean. Let me know if you have any further questions anytime. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help, I truly appreciate it! Have a great day/night! —Sean Stephens (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Moving categories
Hi Justin, welcome back. I have a question about categories – there is Category:Capture the Crown albums which includes their first two albums. However, the band renamed themselves from Capture the Crown to Capture (band), and there is now a category at Category:Capture albums which includes their most recent album. Well firstly, I think this latter category needs to be renamed to Category:Capture (band) albums per the band's article name, if I'm not mistaken. But also, the first category will have to be redirected to this new category and the two albums moved to the new category as well, won't it? Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, You are 100% correct: rename the category, move the articles all into one. Do you need any help doing that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please, if you wouldn't mind – I could rename the category, but I tried moving the albums and got into a real mess, so I put it all on hold until I could get some confirmation. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677 got there before you, I see... :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for sorting this out. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120, No problem. Thanks for asking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for sorting this out. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677 got there before you, I see... :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please, if you wouldn't mind – I could rename the category, but I tried moving the albums and got into a real mess, so I put it all on hold until I could get some confirmation. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
MOS:TABLECAPTION
Hello,
I had a discussion with other user regarding the MOS:TABLECAPTION as I'm having some trouble getting a grasp of the aforementioned subject and he told me that you "could exaplain it better". So, if the summary of the section says for example "charts", and before the charts table it says "weekly charts" or "year-end charts", why should be a caption saying "Weekly chart performance for X" or "year-end charts performance for X". Isn't it a given that is the weekly/year-end chart for X song (as that is the article for it), isn't it a bit repetitive and unecessary? The subject is about song X, not Y, or any other...so I don't understand why it needs to be added? Isn't it clear enough in the title of the summary and its subsection?
Best regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- MarioSoulTruthFan, The caption needs to explain what is in the table. Extremely generic table captions like "Numbers" or "[Album name]" aren't descriptive. Basically, the caption should tell someone what he is about to read, similar to how alt text should describe what someone would be seeing in an image. This is maybe repetitive in as much as you are mentioning the title of the album/song but I think that makes for a best practice for captions (note also that if a table gets transcluded, it's very helpful to have this contextualization--this is common with episodes of TV shows). If you're asking why a caption needs to be added at all, it is for the benefit of screen readers for the blind. H2 level headings (like ==This==) are useful for things like making an outline of a page in OPML or indexing for search engines--they are just different things that have different semantic meaning. Does that make sense? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I do unsertand, thank you so much for taking your time to explain it. Do you mind take a look and see if this was proprely done? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- MarioSoulTruthFan, Beautiful. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I do unsertand, thank you so much for taking your time to explain it. Do you mind take a look and see if this was proprely done? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Meet Me in St. Louis (band) albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Meet Me in St. Louis (band) albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Racing drivers from Wyoming
A tag has been placed on Category:Racing drivers from Wyoming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Saying "That is hostile to our blind users" is not particularly nice. The real reason was I didn't notice you had added the alt text, but did notice the unexplained changes in the infobox, which is a long-standing source of disruption all over this project. Please assume more good faith next time, thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, Would you say that your edit summary set a tone of good faith and collegiality, Ritchie? Is there some special reason why British persons out of all othe other human beings with biographies on this site shouldn't have the state mentioned in their infobox? I'm keenly interested in both answers. I have a third question: is ther some special reason why Graham Chapman in particular] is exempt from the usage documentation at {{infobox person}}}? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a long standing joke, and I thought as a longstanding user you could take the humour in the spirit provided; however it was not meant to offend and I apologise if you were. I took the article to GA status a while (actually quite a few years) back, and (as I remarked on an ANI thread elsewhere) I do get somewhat perplexed when I do a significant amount of work improving an article and finding source material, only to find other editors make trivial changes to them without edit summaries, instead of more important changes such as spelling / grammar fixes, finding further source material, or otherwise making the article substantially better. I don't mind new users doing trivial changes, nobody's told them otherwise, but people who've been around for a while and have made lots of edits ought to be aware of the importance of explaining themselves especially in controversial areas like infoboxes. As for why infoboxes are controversial, lawd only knows. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, I think that you took my questions as purely rhetorical or something but they weren't. Will you be reverting yourself on this page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, ? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a long standing joke, and I thought as a longstanding user you could take the humour in the spirit provided; however it was not meant to offend and I apologise if you were. I took the article to GA status a while (actually quite a few years) back, and (as I remarked on an ANI thread elsewhere) I do get somewhat perplexed when I do a significant amount of work improving an article and finding source material, only to find other editors make trivial changes to them without edit summaries, instead of more important changes such as spelling / grammar fixes, finding further source material, or otherwise making the article substantially better. I don't mind new users doing trivial changes, nobody's told them otherwise, but people who've been around for a while and have made lots of edits ought to be aware of the importance of explaining themselves especially in controversial areas like infoboxes. As for why infoboxes are controversial, lawd only knows. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
How do I prevent this image from being deleted?
Hey Koavf, it's me again. I've uploaded this image for use in the infobox of this article, but it's currently nominated for deletion in line with Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy. I'm trying to figure out how a) fulfills the image policy criteria and b) to ensure the image stays on Wikipedia. I'm trying to make sure I do the right thing, but I'm unsure how to make sense of it all, as Wikipedia's image policy guidelines are very confusing.
Thanks, – Sean Stephens (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sean Stephens, That's going to be a toughie because we can really only uses non-free media there is no free equivalent or no real prospects of a free equivalent. A contemporary band is fairly easy to get a picture of that can be licensed for use here, so it's probably going to be deleted. I'd recommend trying to find a photo of the band that already exists and see if the rights owner would be willing to relicense it or send an email to their management/representation and ask for that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks Koavf, I will try my best to find an alternative image to use in the article. It's disappointing that it's going to get deleted, but that's how Wikipedia's image policies work I guess. I very much appreciate your time. – Sean Stephens (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean on Show Pony when I was in the middle of drafting it with {{in use}}? Are you serious? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- That tag is not an exemption from adhering to 3RR and you know it. El_C 16:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, You have to be kidding me: I couldn't even save the work that I was in the middle of writing. Are you going to block or warn the other editor who kept on reverting to introduce all the errors on the page and add unsourced information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- When I am kidding, you will know it. I have blocked the other user also for violating 3RR. El_C 16:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, If you'll do me the courtesy of removing {{in use}} from Show Pony, that would be handy--I guess I won't get to it for 30 days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. El_C 16:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Thanks. Have a nice month. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Justin. All the best, El_C 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I reckon we need to work on methods for avoiding this. Have you tried using WP:3O or WP:RSN before now to help resolve this sort of question? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, I have done dispute resolution once or twice before. I did not find it very useful in the explicit instance that I can recall. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, well, in cases of disputed reliability of a source, specifically, WP:RSN is pretty helpful in my experience. Also, WP:BRD - and if the other guy is a WP:RANDY then call the cavalry. You're not fighting this battle alone, you know? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Yeah, the moral support is appreciated. That day, I also hadn't slept--I've had six days in the past six weeks where I've been awake more than 24 hours. I own my behavior but I'm just saying that I've been unwell lately. And this situation in particular really ground my gears: it's just someone inserting garbage edits while I'm writing and then doubling down on insisting. It's infuriating. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I get it. I also suffer insomnia sometimes, I am a PTSD patient (mostly OK but it never really goes away). But WP:WIJAGH, you know? I appreciate your remarkable levels of content production, and don't want to see you banned. Maybe voluntarily follow 1RR and make more use of the noticeboards? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Sure: where would you have suggested in this instance? I did the same last nite as well--no sleep. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, probably RSN, on the basis that it's source related, but maybe NPOVN or, if all else fails, a post at ANI saying "what's the best way of resolving this dispute please". We aspiure not to be a bureaucracy, content is king, so a request for advice fomr someone with your record of content creation is likely to get thoughtful input almost anywhere. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Thanks. I would hope. We'll see how September goes. Thanks again for adding your voice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, shame about the wait. You are more sanguine about this than I would be. Truth is, I trust El C's judgment and I am sure he knows what he is doing here, but it seems sad and counterproductive to me: I use blocks mainly for angry idiots, and you are neither. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Yeah, I respect him. I get where he's coming from. I'm very disappointed in the recent responses by admins but I don't have a beef with C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, shame about the wait. You are more sanguine about this than I would be. Truth is, I trust El C's judgment and I am sure he knows what he is doing here, but it seems sad and counterproductive to me: I use blocks mainly for angry idiots, and you are neither. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Thanks. I would hope. We'll see how September goes. Thanks again for adding your voice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, probably RSN, on the basis that it's source related, but maybe NPOVN or, if all else fails, a post at ANI saying "what's the best way of resolving this dispute please". We aspiure not to be a bureaucracy, content is king, so a request for advice fomr someone with your record of content creation is likely to get thoughtful input almost anywhere. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Sure: where would you have suggested in this instance? I did the same last nite as well--no sleep. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, I get it. I also suffer insomnia sometimes, I am a PTSD patient (mostly OK but it never really goes away). But WP:WIJAGH, you know? I appreciate your remarkable levels of content production, and don't want to see you banned. Maybe voluntarily follow 1RR and make more use of the noticeboards? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Yeah, the moral support is appreciated. That day, I also hadn't slept--I've had six days in the past six weeks where I've been awake more than 24 hours. I own my behavior but I'm just saying that I've been unwell lately. And this situation in particular really ground my gears: it's just someone inserting garbage edits while I'm writing and then doubling down on insisting. It's infuriating. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, well, in cases of disputed reliability of a source, specifically, WP:RSN is pretty helpful in my experience. Also, WP:BRD - and if the other guy is a WP:RANDY then call the cavalry. You're not fighting this battle alone, you know? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, I have done dispute resolution once or twice before. I did not find it very useful in the explicit instance that I can recall. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, Thanks. Have a nice month. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, If you'll do me the courtesy of removing {{in use}} from Show Pony, that would be handy--I guess I won't get to it for 30 days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- When I am kidding, you will know it. I have blocked the other user also for violating 3RR. El_C 16:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, You have to be kidding me: I couldn't even save the work that I was in the middle of writing. Are you going to block or warn the other editor who kept on reverting to introduce all the errors on the page and add unsourced information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- That tag is not an exemption from adhering to 3RR and you know it. El_C 16:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean on Show Pony when I was in the middle of drafting it with {{in use}}? Are you serious? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I guess this proves we are all a good night's sleep away from an infraction. I never expected the to happen to you. Well done on the cheerful way you have accepted it Fiddle Faddle 15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Timtrent, Thanks, Tim. I'm 100% responsible for my actions and I don't see any value in turning acrimonious or bitter. Thanks for your kind words as well. I'll see you back in a few weeks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Please reconsider this block
El C, please will you reconsider this block?
I have reviewed the history of Show Pony, and I find myself entirely in sympathy with Justin. He created the page with an {{inuse}} tag , and was actively editing it when another editor decided to ignore the {{inuse}} and butt in repeatedly. Justin started a discussion with the other editor at User talk:Gagaluv1#Please_stop, but that editor didn't have the courtesy to back off and let Justin finish the article before making changes. Sure, Justin shouldn't have gotten into a revert war, but he was being goaded by the highly disruptive behaviour of another editor while he was actively creating encyclopedic content.
I have had that happen, in very similar circumstances: an editor decided to ignore the {{inuse}} tag and change the referencing style as i was writing the article, causing edit conflicts which broke my workflow and disrupted my train of thought. The editor who disrupted me was equally unrepentant. It was utterly exasperating to encounter, and I could easily have slipped over the 3RR limit.
I have avoided that since by always creating new articles in my userspace, and moving them to mainspace only when ready to sign off on them. I am surprised that Justin has not adopted a similar approach, to give him some peace ... but he shouldn't be punished because another editor decided to be a pain in the neck.
And btw, I am not a fan of Justin. I find his style of communication exasperatingly incomplete and therefore frustratingly timewasting, and my objections to that get up his nose. Our last encounter ended with him losing it.
When I saw that he was blocked, I came here rubbernecking to see if it was due to the same problem. But instead I find that Justin was doing everything right, but has been cut down by rigid application of a rule when he had been goaded into crossing a line. In that situation, any block for him is a bit much, but a one-month block is thoroughly unfair. Please lift the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, Wow, thanks B. Brought a tear to my eye. :') Humbling to see you be the bigger person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Justin. I call it like I see it, and this is all very unfair. You were goaded by an editor who was being disruptive, but you got a block 31 time longer than the disruptor. If you were to be blocked at all, the ratio should be the other way round.
- You shouldn't be having this enforced break, but I hope that is helping you get some much-needed rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this time, no. Justin can't continue to violate 3RR, then be unblocked shortly thereafter, over and over again. Something has to give. El_C 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a block review discussion at WP:AN#Review_of_El_C's_block_of_Koavf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Koavf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Per the purely administrative concerns at WP:AN#Review_of_El_C's_block_of_Koavf, there are at least some editors who see a process issue with me not initiating or otherwise assenting to the block review. I appreciate the input of the several editors there who supported me and who correctly noted that I was adding content to the encyclopedia, just as I have done for the past 15+ years and that the substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies. Since this is a unique kind of request, it may be wise to continue any further discussion on that thread. Obviously, I cannot respond there, tho. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Reducing to time served per detailed explanation below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Justin I'd ask to you to seriously consider the criteria laid out by SQL as I believe that is a fair expectation for anyone considering your request. I think it's highly unlikely that this will even be considered unless you're prepared to acknowledge accordingly. Glen (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Glen, see my reply to SQL at AN. I think that SQL's framing of policy is mistaken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I'd like to give Justin the opportunity to respond. I have mixed feelings about the block as I can see the editor being reverted was being disruptive. However 3RR is 3RR and the breach was clear. The question for me is whether the blocking period was appropriate and punitive as opposed to protecting the project. I think Justin's response will go a long way in determining whether he understands the reason for the block and wouldn't act in the same way moving forward. As yet without his response that is undetermined. Glen (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Glen, I understand that framing. However, as explained above and at AN I think that framing this solely as a "how will Justin stop being a miscreant" issue is fundamentally mistaken ... because the wider context is that Justin was being goaded and disrupted.
- Justin will of course choose his own response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I think the criteria laid out by SQL was fair. It's simply asking Justin to accept he was at fault (3RR is clear, he was, I don't think anyone is disputing that) and acknowledgement that he'd act differently if the same situation happened again. Even if he was, as you've put "being goaded" (which I happen to agree with you) the reversions were a breach and he should've taken it to a form of dispute resolution. All many of us are asking for is an acknowledgement of that. I don't feel that is unreasonable. Glen (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Glen, I do wish that those who take this approach would take step back and consider how it has echoes of the logic of a Stalainist show trial, where the role of the accused was to accept full responsibility for everything alleged, and preferably confess to even greater crimes against the state.
- The prejudicial nature of the framing is best illustrated by the simple fact that no similar "rehabilitate or stay blocked" framing is being applied to the editor who was actually being disruptive and harassing. You and others are basically putting the victim in the dock and demanding their repentance.
- Given that this framing is supported by several editors and admins, Justin may well be best advised to go long with your framing. I am sad that you think this fair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, just so I understand is it your position that Justin didn't breach WP:3RR? Glen (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course not, @Glen. I have no idea how anyone could possibly think that is my view.
- My position is that:
- Justin breached 3RR because he had one lapse of self-restraint while he was being systematically goaded and harassed multiple times over period of about an hour. Justin went beyond what was expected in terms of engaging with the harasser, engaging with civility through several rounds of the dialogue which Justin started ....but made at the end, made one revert too many
- The substantive issue here is the goading and harassment, not the 3RR
- I remain sad that some editors continue to focus only on their demands that the victim of the harassment must repent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, okay that's clear. Your comparisons to a
Stalainist show trial
could easily lead someone to think otherwise. I don't think we're that far apart in our positions. The fact is 3RR is policy and he was in breach. Again I don't acknowledgement of that from him is an unreasonable request. I'm cognisant of the fact we're forking the discussion from AN so will await Justin's response before commenting further. Glen (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)- @Glen, I really really wish that you and others would accept that there are multiple facts here. I remain very sad that you and others choose to focus on only one of those facts, namely the consequences of the harassment rather than the harassment itself. In real life, that approach causes huge systemic injustices and societal conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I am largely of the NYB disposition. If Koavf hadn't had chosen to edit war so many times in the past we wouldn't be here. Justin was faced with a disruptive editor. Also it wasn't harassment, at least not from what I've seen. He was challenged in his content by disruptive edits. That disruption was real. And is at least, if not more, equally responsible for why we're here. But that doesn't completely let Justin off the hook for repeatedly edit warring over many different places. I would not have reacted to this incident in this way because I agree with your analysis about how content creation works. But that doesn't, for me, let Justin off the hook either especially because I don't buy 10 blocks for 2 million edits as the right ratio of how to weigh those blocks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, I don't think we are that far far apart. Justin is good at creating content, and does lots of it. That leaves Justin more exposed than most to these situations in which someone else is being disruptive. And for whatever reasons, Justin has not handled it in ways which lead to good outcomes for Justin; he has has not taken the steps which could insulate himself from this sort of thing.
- I think that the prime focus should be on the editor who created the drama, rather than on the one who eventually slipped up in handling it. Of course I wish Justin would take better evasive action, to minimise his exposure those like Gagaluv1 whose actions were at the very best unhelpful drama-creation. But failures in evasive action should not be used as grounds to drive editors away, which seems to be what's happening here.
- If this had just been a 24-hour block I probably wouldn't have intervened. But instead, we are on an exponential scale where the punishment meted out is wholly disproportionate to the offence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, problem is, Justin has form. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's unfair, Guy. His block log was lean from 2010 to 2019. Then starting in Sept 2019 he had 4 blocks, inc this one, but that was over the course of more than 40,000 edits. The deterioration since 2019 is disappointing, but it's not a disaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, problem is, Justin has form. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I am largely of the NYB disposition. If Koavf hadn't had chosen to edit war so many times in the past we wouldn't be here. Justin was faced with a disruptive editor. Also it wasn't harassment, at least not from what I've seen. He was challenged in his content by disruptive edits. That disruption was real. And is at least, if not more, equally responsible for why we're here. But that doesn't completely let Justin off the hook for repeatedly edit warring over many different places. I would not have reacted to this incident in this way because I agree with your analysis about how content creation works. But that doesn't, for me, let Justin off the hook either especially because I don't buy 10 blocks for 2 million edits as the right ratio of how to weigh those blocks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Glen, I really really wish that you and others would accept that there are multiple facts here. I remain very sad that you and others choose to focus on only one of those facts, namely the consequences of the harassment rather than the harassment itself. In real life, that approach causes huge systemic injustices and societal conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, okay that's clear. Your comparisons to a
- BrownHairedGirl, I think the criteria laid out by SQL was fair. It's simply asking Justin to accept he was at fault (3RR is clear, he was, I don't think anyone is disputing that) and acknowledgement that he'd act differently if the same situation happened again. Even if he was, as you've put "being goaded" (which I happen to agree with you) the reversions were a breach and he should've taken it to a form of dispute resolution. All many of us are asking for is an acknowledgement of that. I don't feel that is unreasonable. Glen (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I'd like to give Justin the opportunity to respond. I have mixed feelings about the block as I can see the editor being reverted was being disruptive. However 3RR is 3RR and the breach was clear. The question for me is whether the blocking period was appropriate and punitive as opposed to protecting the project. I think Justin's response will go a long way in determining whether he understands the reason for the block and wouldn't act in the same way moving forward. As yet without his response that is undetermined. Glen (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Glen, I didn't ping you below as an oversite. See my response to your solicitation. Let me know if there's something else you need from me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, thanks I was awaiting your response before commenting at AN. Personally I am comfortable unblocking you but as this has become a fairly contentious issue on AN let's see if we can some agreement there. Glen (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Glen, Agreed that the narrow issue of blocking/unblocking me and the extent to which El C may wish to review his actions can be sensitive. I respect others' decisions, including C's, even if I disagree with them and I've really only seen a couple of comments there that are frankly ridiculous and unfair. Whatever you choose to post, I appreciate you giving your time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, thanks I was awaiting your response before commenting at AN. Personally I am comfortable unblocking you but as this has become a fairly contentious issue on AN let's see if we can some agreement there. Glen (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Glen, see my reply to SQL at AN. I think that SQL's framing of policy is mistaken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- For the reasons stated in the noticeboard thread, I am inclined to unblock, but let's see if we can get a consensus to do so. I'll note on AN that an unblock request has now been posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Koavf and thanks for your contributions. Edit warring is never helpful, there are many other ways to correct concerns and it is imo never so desperate to get yourself blocked for. I would like to see you accept that and finish this restriction and move forwards with all your contributions available, best. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is your 15th(I might be off by a couple in either direction, but even 10 is a ton) block for edit warring. What is the plan going forth to avoid this type of behavior? SQLQuery me! 13:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @SQL: please consider that record in the context of Koavf's exceptional volume of contributions. Ten blocks in the course of over two million edits is a much lower problem rate than an editor with 50,000 edits who has been blocked once. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you've been blocked three times in the past two months for edit warring. Your unblock request needs to address that. How do we know we won't be back in this situation again in a few weeks? What are you going to do differently? – bradv🍁 14:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I just stumbled on this and while reading through I noticed @Barkeep49: an administrator say this: "Justin was faced with a disruptive editor. He was challenged in his content by disruptive edits. That disruption was real." When giving warnings (such as using twinkle), that falls under vandalism/removal of content/disruptive editing/edit tests and I tend to remove those on sight. By the third time I have also informed administrators of the problem but continue to remove that vandalism, and get others involved to help remove it. Now I don't have some history of 3RR problems, but it seems we have to be careful of the punishment fitting the crime. No matter how many times someone steals a loaf of bread, they are never going to serve a year in state prison (unless you're Jean Valjean). Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@SQL and Bradv: (and others as well, they just seemed most relevant). Thanks for all the light and the relatively low amount of heat in the discussion and thanks for soliciting my feedback. To respond to SQL: "An admission from the editor that they broke the rules" This is pretty empirical and while it was maybe tacit in my comments above, I will explicitly say that yes, it is the case that I reverted another editor's work more than three times in a 24-hour period on the same article and that the reasons I had for doing so were not some of the narrow exemptions provided by WP:3RRNO. "An explanation from the editor that they now understand the rules" Yes, as I mentioned just now, the other editor's actions were not so nonconstructive, egregious, or otherwise damaging that they meet the threshold for reverting more than three times in a 24-hour period. "A plan from the editor on how they intend to comply with the rules going forth." Specifically re: this issue, several persons have solicited to intervene and mediate, so I really can't imagine that there will be any serious contention on that page in particular. Regarding the larger issue of reverting and edit-warring, the best I can offer is a promise to leverage those individuals in the future. There were a lot more comments implicitly or explicitly directed to me or some kind of confidence-building but I hope this is the quickest and most direct way to address all the other comments at the AN thread. If others want clarification, etc. please let me know. Again, thanks all for having a pretty respectful and meaningful conversation that is more principle-based than personality-based. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken Please see the above as your comment is irrelevant to what Glen and I wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, Glen wrote: "Justin admitted responsibility in Post [X]" and provided a link. You responded, "Well, he didn't mention it in Post [Y]" and showed no acknowledgement that you had actually read the post that Glen explicitly mentioned. If you "see absolutely nothing there that can be construed as an 'understanding of his wrongdoing'," then you could read the actual post that Glen explicitly asked you to read which provides exactly that. If you don't want to retract your statement, your call but it definitely looks like you paid no attention to what he wrote and claimed that you can't find evidence for something that was just given to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on the unblock requests and Koavf's responses above, I am reducing the block to time served and unblocking. I will explain my reasoning below, in a new thread so it won't get lost in this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cowboy pop EPs
A tag has been placed on Category:Cowboy pop EPs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tangerine Records (1963) albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Tangerine Records (1963) albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Motorsport in Wyoming
A tag has been placed on Category:Motorsport in Wyoming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Unblock rationale
This is my explanation for reducing the current one-month block imposed by El C to time served and unblocking. I am opening a separate thread just so the explanation doesn't get lost in the long discussion above.
BrownHairedGirl opened a thread on AN requesting a review of this block, before Koavf had formally posted an unblock request (although it was obvious that he did not agree with the block). The extensive discussion revealed sharp divisions of opinion with no consensus either in favor of or against the block.
The block was for a 3RR violation and admittedly it was far from the first time that Koavf has been blocked for edit-warring. Despite this fact, my personal opinion was that the block was probably not necessary given the specific circumstances of the violation, and that in any event it was much too long.
My view that the situation could have been handled with no block at all did not receive much support. My view that the block was too long received more support although also much disagreement. However, several people commented that we shouldn't be discussing the block at all, or at least not deciding what to do about it, unless and until Koavf posted an unblock request. He then did so, and has amplified it in subsequent comments. While the unblock request and its addenda will not win any commendations for "unblock request of the year," they do reflect Koavf's recognition that he violated the 3RR and should not have. Some people opined above and in the ANI thread that Koavf's statements were enough to support an unblock; others disagreed.
I raised in the AN thread the "meta" question of what the outcome should be if the discussion reached no consensus at all—no consensus to unblock but also no consensus to maintain the block. Most of the people who commented on that question agreed that if that happened—which it has—an administrator reviewing the unblock request would be free to use his or her own judgment. I am doing that here, but I am mindful of the concerns about Koavf's editing that were expressed in the discussion, as well as on this page.
I have decided that it is safe and fair to unblock Koavf at this time, but in deference to the blocking administrator and those who agreed with his opinion, the unblock is not based on a finding that the block was wrong or excessive when imposed. Instead, I am reducing the block to "time served" based upon what I take as Koavf's commitment to abide by the 3RR more carefully in the future.
I will state to Koavf very directly that many people will disagree with this unblock and regard it as licensing further edit-warring. Even if I wanted to do that, which I don't, I would have no ability to do it. As I said above, I personally regarded this particular "edit-war" as a minor incident accompanied by extenuating circumstances, but a lot of people I respect did not endorse that interpretation. For better or worse, given your history, there are those who are unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt or any leniency if any more 3RR issues arise. Speaking for myself I do not endorse that approach, but I am only one person.
Going forward, Koafv, you need to be exceptionally careful to avoid edit-warring as well as anything that might reasonably been seen as edit-warring, in order to avoid further blocks. I hope and trust that you will be able to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Very reasonable NYB. Thank you for your leadership here. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Newyorkbrad. It's not the result I had hoped for, but I think it's a good reflection of the balance of views at AN. And I agree that Justin does need to take great care to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad, thank you. That is a very fair summary. Sadly, yes, Justin does have "form", but I think this should be viewed in the light of the sheer number of edits he makes, most of which are unambiguously good. I have already talked to Justin about how to better use what processes and structures we have to avoid the need to edit war in future. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers Koavf, glad you're back. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Newyorkbrad for your actions here, Justin I say this from one human to another - Please don't make NYB or others regret it (I'm sure you wont), Glad to see you unblocked, Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Davey2010, Thanks--all the kind words were appreciated and especially yours. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Justin, if you get an urge reverting sip some of that Ovila first :) that thing is damn good, will make you ignore everything instantly [1] Those Spaniards know how to make good stuff. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, I'm 14,000+ days sober but I'll remember that there are alternatives in the future. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Newyorkbrad for your actions here, Justin I say this from one human to another - Please don't make NYB or others regret it (I'm sure you wont), Glad to see you unblocked, Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers Koavf, glad you're back. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Justin. I don't think we've ever interacted on WP, but just dropping by to check that is well. Putting so much and effort into the project, and then having to take an abrupt halt, can't be good. Hopefully, you're OK. I'm more of a casual REM fan myself, having seen them live once in the UK. But if you want to chat all things alt-rock, then feel free to do so. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, I very much look forward to educating you on the glory of R.E.M. Thanks for the invitation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks all. There were a lot of responses, including some that were pretty passionate and that found serious fault with my actions. To those of you who did, particularly @El C:, I appreciate your feedback and most of you had accurate and constructive things to say. I don't think anyone wants needless back and forth between admins, so I respect that several of them discussed procedural issues with collegiality. Thanks to @BrownHairedGirl: for starting the discussion based on principle and a sense of what was best for the project and everyone involved and to @Newyorkbrad: for being willing to do something potentially contentious. Thanks all for the well wishes here. I'm looking forward to contributing on en.wp. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Alternative Tentacles remix albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Alternative Tentacles remix albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Disturbing tha Peace soundtracks
A tag has been placed on Category:Disturbing tha Peace soundtracks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"Template:Usemdydates" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Usemdydates. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Template:Usemdydates until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Chadwick Boseman
Sorry for undoing your edit to the "Death" section, but I wanted to make sure to remove all of the archived links. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Elisfkc, No worries, man--this happens with current events. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"England, UK"
This has been discussed many, many times, and the clear consensus is that you can use one or the other, but never both. Do you want me to search for past decisions or are you willing to accept the consensus? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, Did you see Template:Infobox_musical_artist#birth_place? It says the opposite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is to do with how abbreviations are presented ("UK" or "U.K."), not the question of whether both England and UK should be included. If necessary I'll raise the issue again at WT:MOS, but don't really want to go through rehashing old arguments if it can be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, As the note there says: "As per RfC "Naming countries in infoboxes": When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK"," See also the examples in the documentation with "U.S." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- And as I said, that is to do with the style of the country abbreviation, not whether "England, UK" is good practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Here is the most recent discussion. The consensus seems to be that there is no consensus, and in those circumstances it seems that the best approach is to leave things in each case as they are rather than trying to impose changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, That's not how I read that template documentation and I don't see any reason why the United Kingdom should be special over the ~200 states in the world. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The note is very specifically about "the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO" - which is not the point at issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, It's pretty explicit: "When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK"" The preferred way of writing it is "[City], England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales, UK" They give examples of exactly that and don't give examples of "[City], North Carolina" or "[City], Scotland". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Where is the guidance that says "The preferred way of writing it is "[City], England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales, UK" ? It's outside the scope of the paragraph you are quoting, which simply deals with the question of whether to use "UK" or "U.K.", and not whether or not to use "England, UK". That is a question which is simply not addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, The examples they give are all of that sort that end with "U.S." or "UK". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- (1) They are examples to demonstrate a different point and do not provide guidance on the point at issue; and (2) it says "Wales, UK", not "England, UK". This is important (if contentious), as readers globally will be less likely to know where Wales is than to know where England is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, It doesn't matter if readers are more likely to know New York than Wyoming: they are both part of the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I accept that point is less crucial than my first point, which is that you are misunderstanding the scope of the guidance at MOS:ACRO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, And I think I'm not. They give several examples and all include "UK" or "U.S." and again, there's no reason why the United Kingdom is somehow special. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is not guidance on that point - it is simply an example relating to a different point, and one which refers to Wales, not England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC) PS: If your point were valid, why has it not been mentioned in the discussion at WT:MOS? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, I don't know what hasn't been mentioned at a talk page that has 220 archived pages. I don't know how to help you: the template documentation says what to put there and I put it there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point. If you haven't yet read the recent (and, now, ongoing) discussion at WT:MOS#Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes that I specifically pointed out to you earlier (at 12:38), I suggest you do, as it directly relates to the point at issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, So there's an open discussion: I don't understand what you're trying to prove. There is stable documentation, so I am referencing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that you are trying to claim that an example included in one place to demonstrate one point, can be used to demonstrate a quite different point on a different issue, when the active discussion taking place demonstrates that that is palpably and obviously not true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, I am claiming that I am using the infobox as it should be used based on the documentation of how it should be used. I have also commented elsewhere that the UK is the same as everywhere else and should be treated as such. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- You obviously believe what you say is true. In that case, I suggest you join in the discussion, and say that MOS:ACRO clearly states that saying "England, UK" is correct and acceptable. If you're right, that will end the argument there and then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, Join in what discussion? The one where I already posted? What are you talking about? What is "palpably true"? Why are you being so cryptic and unhelpful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I missed that. Wait and see. Though it's quite possible that everyone is so exhausted by all the arguments that have taken place over the years that they will simply sigh and ignore it. C'est la vie. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, "WHAT IS PALPABLY TRUE"? Why are you being so cryptic and unhelpful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- We're going round in circles. It's "palpably true" that the discussion about whether using "England, UK" is acceptable - which is an unresolved discussion - is a quite different issue from the one about whether to use "UK" or "U.K." - which is uncontentious and set out at MOS:ACRO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, "WHAT IS PALPABLY TRUE"? Why are you being so cryptic and unhelpful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I missed that. Wait and see. Though it's quite possible that everyone is so exhausted by all the arguments that have taken place over the years that they will simply sigh and ignore it. C'est la vie. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, Join in what discussion? The one where I already posted? What are you talking about? What is "palpably true"? Why are you being so cryptic and unhelpful? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- You obviously believe what you say is true. In that case, I suggest you join in the discussion, and say that MOS:ACRO clearly states that saying "England, UK" is correct and acceptable. If you're right, that will end the argument there and then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, I am claiming that I am using the infobox as it should be used based on the documentation of how it should be used. I have also commented elsewhere that the UK is the same as everywhere else and should be treated as such. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that you are trying to claim that an example included in one place to demonstrate one point, can be used to demonstrate a quite different point on a different issue, when the active discussion taking place demonstrates that that is palpably and obviously not true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, So there's an open discussion: I don't understand what you're trying to prove. There is stable documentation, so I am referencing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point. If you haven't yet read the recent (and, now, ongoing) discussion at WT:MOS#Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes that I specifically pointed out to you earlier (at 12:38), I suggest you do, as it directly relates to the point at issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, I don't know what hasn't been mentioned at a talk page that has 220 archived pages. I don't know how to help you: the template documentation says what to put there and I put it there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is not guidance on that point - it is simply an example relating to a different point, and one which refers to Wales, not England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC) PS: If your point were valid, why has it not been mentioned in the discussion at WT:MOS? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, And I think I'm not. They give several examples and all include "UK" or "U.S." and again, there's no reason why the United Kingdom is somehow special. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I accept that point is less crucial than my first point, which is that you are misunderstanding the scope of the guidance at MOS:ACRO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, It doesn't matter if readers are more likely to know New York than Wyoming: they are both part of the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- (1) They are examples to demonstrate a different point and do not provide guidance on the point at issue; and (2) it says "Wales, UK", not "England, UK". This is important (if contentious), as readers globally will be less likely to know where Wales is than to know where England is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, The examples they give are all of that sort that end with "U.S." or "UK". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Where is the guidance that says "The preferred way of writing it is "[City], England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales, UK" ? It's outside the scope of the paragraph you are quoting, which simply deals with the question of whether to use "UK" or "U.K.", and not whether or not to use "England, UK". That is a question which is simply not addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, It's pretty explicit: "When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK"" The preferred way of writing it is "[City], England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales, UK" They give examples of exactly that and don't give examples of "[City], North Carolina" or "[City], Scotland". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The note is very specifically about "the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO" - which is not the point at issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, That's not how I read that template documentation and I don't see any reason why the United Kingdom should be special over the ~200 states in the world. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, As the note there says: "As per RfC "Naming countries in infoboxes": When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK"," See also the examples in the documentation with "U.S." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is to do with how abbreviations are presented ("UK" or "U.K."), not the question of whether both England and UK should be included. If necessary I'll raise the issue again at WT:MOS, but don't really want to go through rehashing old arguments if it can be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Rollins site link
Until I saw your edit this morning, I was completely unaware that the Official Website template can be simply stated and integrates from Wikidata P856. Thanks! AllyD (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- AllyD, How kind of you to note, Ally--we all learn something new every day. Have a good one and taing do again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Album Ratings template format
Hi Koavf. Just wondering why you're insisting on non-standard formats for the ratings on Microphones in 2020? The standard for the template (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Album_ratings ) is to list ratings as "8.5/10", while your edits have used three different non-standard formats. Thanks. SECProto (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- SECProto, Because {{frac}} makes a sematically meaningful fraction. If you are using a screen reader, it will say "three fifths" or "four out of five" or somesuch. If you write the unsemantic "4/5" it will say "four slash five". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf Ratings aren't fractions though - a rating of 8 out of 10 is not a rating of "eight tenths". That gets a bit into the particulars of screen readers though. Is it possible to use { { frac } } on its own (to create a fraction slash glyph, ⁄ ) rather than the full format you've used? If these fractions are the preferred method of writing ratings, should the template be updated? Should a bot be tasked with updating the ratings pages on hundreds of thousands of album/game/movie/tv show pages? SECProto (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- SECProto, Hm. So you're saying that these aren't to be understood as fractions... Maybe that is true: I guess I hadn't considered that "eight out of 10" is not equivalent to "eight tenths". Thanks for bringing this up to me. I agree that if my initial perspective is correct, then the documentation and uses should be updated but if I'm just wrong as you've suggested, then the format "6.7/10" is correct. Seems like I've stumbled on something more complicated than I first realized. Do you have a source on "85/100" not being a fraction or an intended fraction? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf Ratings aren't fractions though - a rating of 8 out of 10 is not a rating of "eight tenths". That gets a bit into the particulars of screen readers though. Is it possible to use { { frac } } on its own (to create a fraction slash glyph, ⁄ ) rather than the full format you've used? If these fractions are the preferred method of writing ratings, should the template be updated? Should a bot be tasked with updating the ratings pages on hundreds of thousands of album/game/movie/tv show pages? SECProto (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey
Was working on the Menergy article... Caro7200 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, I don't understand why you are telling me this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to flag that this edit went directly against consensus at two separate FFD discussions (see talk page and history). I realize it may be easy to miss that this had already been discussed; any suggestions for ways to make it more obvious? Wikiacc (¶) 01:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wikiacc, You know, as soon as I saw this, I thought, "Oh, yeah, the text itself..." I added an HTML comment and I hope that will stop others from wasting time. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Progressive metal albums by Tunisian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Joe Negri
Would you clean up the Joe Negri article? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Requiem In Pace, fren
|
Requiem In Pace |
| Requiem In Pace Bin Davvis (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Olympic Games
Template:Editnotices/Page/Olympic Games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums conducted by Maurice Gibb
A tag has been placed on Category:Albums conducted by Maurice Gibb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sun Songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMG.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Kamikaze (Eminem album)
Template:Kamikaze (Eminem album) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Upmerge as appropriate
Hi Justin, when nominating categories for deletion, if some merger is appropriate, please would you spell it out in the nomination, rather than "Propose deleting… Upmerge as appropriate"? In practice, closers are liable to process as "delete" if that's what the nomination says and the other participants echo it, e.g. [2]. IMHO the burden is on the nominator rather than the closer to figure out what is needed. (In that case, for the record, I have reinstated the "game" parent categories but omitted the "franchise" categories.) – Fayenatic London 08:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london, In some cases, I don't know what's best, so I leave it up to the judgement of the person closing. In this case, it seems like I stated how both entries would go in both categories--could the script I used allow me to list two targets? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you stated that both articles can go in all categories. The parent categories were:
- Category:Ngmoco games
- Category:DeNA franchises
- Category:IOS-only games
- Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2008
- Category:Action-adventure games
- Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises
- – some of which would not apply. Articles on games should not go in franchise categories.
- The usual merger template {{cfm}} only allows you to specify one target, but there is also {{cfm-double}} which allows two. I don't know if your script would use that one. Of course, you can write in as many as you like manually. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Letter to You
Justin, could you please explain why you redirected an existing article to one on the same subject, that you created after the original? JasonH1978 created Letter to You (Bruce Springsteen album), which was not an empty page and you basically created your own page and redirected the original. If you have an explanation great. But on its face this doesn't look good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, I just saw it after the fact--I didn't even know that his was made after mine. The only original content in it was unsourced (e.g. the location of production and some quotations and personnel). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to merge edit histories, etc. let me know what the best path is but there is no real original content in his version that was sourced and is copyright-able for attribution purposes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your page was created after theirs, even if by only a few hours. Poor referencing is not grounds for overriding a page and replacing it with your own. I advise you to remove the redirect and merge your material into the original page. Yours can then be turned into a redirect or deleted per CSD A10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Merge it how? Copy and paste? I can't merge page histories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for a history merge. Just take your material and move it into the original article. You can make any changes to the original article that you believe are constructive per WP:BOLD. The only thing you should not do is to blank and redirect the original page to another on the same subject created later. It's not complicated or a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to turn your page into a redirect that's fine. Alternatively you can request deletion per CSD G7 or A10. If you prefer your article name for the page we can do a move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, If the process doesn't matter, I can copy/paste and do a round robin move to retain page histories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- As long as the article we are left with retains the page history reflecting its original creator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, It does and I copied and pasted content from the other article and all my edits are in the public domain anyway, so they don't require attribution. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, It does and I copied and pasted content from the other article and all my edits are in the public domain anyway, so they don't require attribution. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- As long as the article we are left with retains the page history reflecting its original creator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, If the process doesn't matter, I can copy/paste and do a round robin move to retain page histories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to turn your page into a redirect that's fine. Alternatively you can request deletion per CSD G7 or A10. If you prefer your article name for the page we can do a move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for a history merge. Just take your material and move it into the original article. You can make any changes to the original article that you believe are constructive per WP:BOLD. The only thing you should not do is to blank and redirect the original page to another on the same subject created later. It's not complicated or a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Merge it how? Copy and paste? I can't merge page histories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your page was created after theirs, even if by only a few hours. Poor referencing is not grounds for overriding a page and replacing it with your own. I advise you to remove the redirect and merge your material into the original page. Yours can then be turned into a redirect or deleted per CSD A10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to merge edit histories, etc. let me know what the best path is but there is no real original content in his version that was sourced and is copyright-able for attribution purposes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Heavy metal albums by Tunisian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |