User talk:Koavf/Archive055

User talk:Koavf archives

001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb 002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb 003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb 004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb 005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb 006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb 007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb 008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb 009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb 010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb 011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb 012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb 013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb 014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb 015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb 016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb 017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb 018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb 019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb 020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb 021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb 022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb 023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb 024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb 025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb 026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb 027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb 028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb 030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb 031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb 032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb 033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb 034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb 035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb 036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb 037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb 038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb 039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb 040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb 041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb 042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb 043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb 044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb 045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb 046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb 047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb 048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb 049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb 050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb 051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb 052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb 053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb 054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb 055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb 056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb 057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb 058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb 059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb 060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb 061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb Current discussion

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

The Midnight Snack

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

Joe Roe, I don't think they should be deleted--why would I post them to AfD? As you know, per WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE, we cannot have unsourced content here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to come here to post a similar comment to Joe. In cases where there's a back-and-forth over whether an article should be redirected or not, AfD is still the appropriate venue to hash out the discussion, just make it clear in your nominating statement what outcome you're advocating for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I already have a consensus at WT:ANIMATION in addition to the fact that WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NOTABLE are non-negotiable policies at Wikipedia. Where do you see any text at WP:AFD that says that it's an appropriate venue for proposing a redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a policy page on hand to quote at you, but I can say that this has long been the practice as part of new page patrol so as to avoid the perception that we're not giving articles a fair hearing (see WP:DRAFTIFY for an example of an analogous case where it's stated that an article should be taken to AfD following contested moves out of mainspace).

While I agree with your initiative for most of these articles, I would hesitate to call the discussion at WT:ANIMATION a consensus. Taking these articles to AfD will settle the matter once and for all, as opposed to edit warring until 3RR sanctions come into play. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I found the relevant guidelines: WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR: If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, (Looks like we had an edit conflict). Exactly: consensus should be made before restoration. Note that one of the users undoing these redirects also appeals to WP:PRESERVE which explicitly says that WP:OR and WP:V indicate that material that does not meet these policies should be removed as well as "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but the other guideline I linked says effectively the opposite: the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input.

Given that there's a contradiction here, we should default to BRD. In most cases, it would appear to be the conversion to a redirect which was the original bold edit, so following the revert to article discussion is the next step. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on the importance of removing unsourced content, but repeatedly restoring a revert while quoting policy links at editors who clearly don't understand what's going on is not productive because they're just going to revert you, prolonging the process and ultimately increasing the amount of time that this content is in the mainspace. One of the editors you're warring with is literally 14 if their user page is to be believed.

Also, these articles are about cartoons from almost a century ago, that have been up in mainspace for a decade. We're not exactly dealing with libelous BLPs, one more week spent with a deletion tag on them while we establish a clear consensus is not going to harm anyone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, There already is a consensus for WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SOURCE for the entire encyclopedia project. If we get a consensus at WP:AFD or WT:ANIMATION or any other page, why would they be more likely to listen to that? Why is the onus on me to expend more overhead for these non-articles that we should never have had instead of someone just saying, "Don't do this again or you'll be blocked"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:CIVIL is also policy (and also because other editors will likely stand down once such a consensus has been reached, and because admins will be quick to intervene in the event that someone edits against a clear consensus from an AfD). Additionally, one of the cartoon articles that you've reverted recently, The Two Mouseketeers, has an Oscar win to its name, with an external link to what is probably a reliable source backing up that claim, so at least one of these articles would likely survive an AfD even if the sourcing on the article as written is woefully deficient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, WP:CIVIL? Have I in any way not treated others with consideration and respect? I think I've tried to maintain a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates here. What have I done that is uncivil? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm interpreting CIVIL broadly admittedly, but it's pretty clear that at least one of the editors fighting you over this does not understand why you are reverting the articles and does not understand how writing WP:OR, WP:V etc. in the edit summary is an explanation. Which is frustrating to deal with and arguably close to WP:CIR-territory at that point, but from their perspective it is also very frustrating because content that they care about is being deleted and they 1) don't understand why and 2) don't understand why you have the authority to do this unilaterally, leading them to fight back by edit warring.

At any rate, I think my other argument is better: AfDs end edit wars. We have a guideline (WP:BLAR) saying that this is an acceptable use of AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I have explained this on all of their talk pages and invited all of them to comment at the discussion at WT:ANIMATION; they are choosing to be willfully ignorant and are opposed to discussion or collaboration. Yes, things can be confusing or frustrating but I have done more than just put "WP:OR" in an edit summary: I have made many, many good faith attempts to discuss with them and they have all refused to a person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, in that case I totally retract my comment about civility. I still think that going to AfD will likely resolve the issue once and for all, but at this point it's your call. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thanks. Your feedback is very much appreciated and I appreciate you giving your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, The second sentence at WP:AFD reads (emphasis added), "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I would be happy to nominate these if I thought it were appropriate but the page explicitly says to not do this. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

pretty sure pages needing redirects in that context means a page that needs a redirect pointing to it. At any rate, see my above comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a reply from me is warranted here, since I am (peripherally) involved in this: I don't see how claims that lack sources are of use to anyone who reads or edits Wikipedia. Content should be verified with reliable sources. Articles about fictional works should also have source-verified content that demonstrates notability—that is, descriptions of backgrounds and critic reviews of the works (articles about The Simpsons episodes are a good example of this); not just a plot summary, otherwise we're just left with an indiscriminate collection of information. Conversely, the Hanna–Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoons were made decades ago, long before computers even existed, so sources that might make these cartoons eligible for stand-alone articles might not be so easily accessible through internet searching—such sources may only be found in old newspapers which aren't stored digitally. Redirecting unreferenced articles for which sources can't be found easily seems to me to be reasonable (as long as their titles are plausible search terms), as the good-faith edits to the articles are preserved under the redirects instead of just being completely deleted, and the redirection can (but shouldn't necessarily) be reversed at any time. By the way, I have filed a full-protection request for The Midnight Snack as this edit war is getting out of hand. Linguist111^{my talk page} 03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Linguist111, Thanks. I am posting this to WT:ANIMATION as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Midnight Snack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Joe (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really shocked that I have to remind you about this given your level of experience. When changes are disputed we, retain the status quo (in this case no redirect) and attempt to reach a consensus. You've been advised by multiple editors (7&6=thirteen, DBigXray, me, Rosguill) that you should stop edit warring over these redirects and take it to AfD or a talk page. Simply informing the other party that they are wrong is not a consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)