User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 15

Straight from The Barrio listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Straight from The Barrio. Since you had some involvement with the Straight from The Barrio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Violent Plan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Violent Plan. Since you had some involvement with the Violent Plan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicolette Frangipane listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nicolette Frangipane. Since you had some involvement with the Nicolette Frangipane redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SST flyer  14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Detention Center listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Raymond Detention Center. Since you had some involvement with the Raymond Detention Center redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Nicolette listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ashley Nicolette. Since you had some involvement with the Ashley Nicolette redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Capital Kings
Template:Capital Kings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

David Montano listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect David Montano. Since you had some involvement with the David Montano redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossroads Mall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Language & Perspective
Hi, I'm Chris troutman. Jax 0677, thanks for creating Language & Perspective!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. No evidence this subject passes WP:NMUSIC.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I only created the redirect, not most of the current page. You may wish to consult with . --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. There's isn't a button within the Page Curation tool (unlke the AFCH tool) to not send those automated notices. I guess I should ask developers about it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

EVOLution
This is kind of a mess with three different forks of the article (EVOLution, Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album) and Draft:EVOLution). I have some more info at Draft:EVOLution. Not too sure how this mess is best sorted out, preserving attribution and all, but either way, the title should probably be EVOLution, as the majority of sources use the stylization. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, though it does not matter to me, I think that MOS:TM will prohibit this. That being said, you are welcome to put in a request at WP:RM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It says that if most reliable sources use the stylization, we can use it too, though I haven't checked other sources not in the article yet. (Also, your after-the-fact ping didn't work, see mw:Help:Echo, though I noticed your reply on my watchlist.) nyuszika7h (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

USPS template
On specifically US related articles it is probably OK to add the template United States Postal Service), but where those articles take more of a worldview it seems an inappropriate addition. Hence, I have removed it from some non-US only article that I noted. If you have added it to others I would advise removing it. Even where it is used I think it should be set to display as a collapsed state due it its very large size; editors can always expand it but in some instances it is even bigger than the article it is in. ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have requested assistance with this navbox at WP:RT, but AFAIK, I have not received any help to this day. Since I do not work at the post office, I can only rely on the category for USPS.  If you would like to help guide me on this, please do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall it seems like really much to big a template overall with too many entries but I'll have a look and see if it can be pruned. WP:RT does not seem like a highly frequented page. Maybe it would be better to find a different forum for assistance. I see you have now collapsed it so it looks much better especially on short stub articles where it overwhelmed the pages. ww2censor (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have left many things out of the navbox, such as "Post office buildings in the United States"‎, "Postal codes in the United States"‎, "Postal history of the United States‎", "United States federal postal legislation‎" as well as "Postage stamps of the United States", for which I will plan eventually to have their own navigation boxes. I cannot think of any USPS article that encompasses many other pages.  To which forum should I post for help on USPS? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll have a think about it. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oil pipeline accidents list
Thank you very very much for starting this incredibly useful list. Sawyer12477 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Sawyer12477

Nomination of Townville Elementary School shooting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Townville Elementary School shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Townville Elementary School shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Pisgah National Forest
I removed the waterfall accident because Wikipedia is not the news, and because it was a contextless interjection with poor grammar. We don't report accidental deaths in public lands unless they get unusual publicity, and rarely at that.  Acroterion   (talk)   10:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, which article was this again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * !!! Now we know what autocorrect does to "Pisgah." Cripes.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dim Days of Dolor
Hi my friend. Excuse me, but I don't understand the observation you made to my article. The sources are clear and concrete, no broken links anywhere. Can you explain me?. to improve. Thank you. --Apega71 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, you need to use Reflinks to create a properly formatted reference, as what is there now is only the internet site. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please try to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia instead of littering all these pages with unnecessary tags. You could have fixed it yourself with just a few clicks. Hzh (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jax. As it seems that multiple editors have now brought up to you concerns about the use and number of tags you place on articles, you may want to reconsider and start listening to these requests to limit and/or improve your use of them. Continued disruptive behavior will lead to another WP:ANI. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, aside from fixing the reference and linkrot issues myself, if the way that I am using the tags is not correct, how am I supposed to use the tags? Should I go by the rule that if more than one tag regarding references (or outdated material) is needed on a page, that I use +r (or otd) and expect people to find the exact location of the issues on their own?  How should I go about using lr?  This again begs the question, why urs and lr exist in the first place?  WP:OUTDATED states that we are allowed to use otd if we do not wish to update a page ourselves.  I wrote 3 pages for Myka Relocate, with the material that I personally added being properly referenced, which is how it should be, if it is to be in the encyclopedia at all.  It is not my job to search for references for material that other people add. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your reply suggests that you have no interest in what other people say. You just do what you want to do. First you said it takes a lot of the time to do it, but after I have told you that you can fix the page in a few clicks, you still stick  to many pages where you can fix the issue by just a few clicks that takes not more than a few seconds, e.g. We Call It Acieed, 2014–15 Texas–Pan American Broncs men's basketball team and the one here Dim Days of Dolor.  It is quite obvious when looking at the citations that it is something easily fixed, but you are not interested in fixing them. Sometimes a page has many citations that need fixing and it would look like it would take time to fix them, but the examples given are not.  I have no interest in why you think spending a few seconds is wasting too much of your time, or what your motive is in littering all the pages with tags.  Perhaps you think you are helping, so let you tell you that you are not.  Your action may be construed as disruptive per WP:TAGBOMBING, and may get you blocked. Hzh (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jax 0677, I am seriously considering reporting you very soon. So many users are having problems with you and you will not listen. You just blanked single entries on Cash Cash discography, which is never done even if content is unreferened, and replaced them with dashes. That's like redacting information. How is this right to do? You also blanked entire sections, which if anybody else had done, would've been reverted as vandalism. This is ridiculous. You barely leave tags on for two months or so before you think it's correct to remove information. It isn't, so stop doing it or you will be reported. There's tagging information that's unreferenced, then there's blanking it and you just did that. Your edits are not helpful, and I'm afraid you won't change until an administrator tells you to. There is not a time limit on when information has to be referenced, and you can say "I was WP:BOLD and removed it myself", but BOLD also says that when you run into conflicts, resolve them first before restoring your content, and you keep repeating the same old arguments that don't make sense to anybody but you.  Ss 112  13:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jax, you do have a history of being an inefficient editor who will only do the minimal amount possible, which is why you were previously topic banned when it came to the navboxes you were creating. Do you really want to go down that road of ANI again because it is inevitable if you continue to ignore the remarks from multiple concerned editors. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposed guidelines for tagging
,, Thus far, I have been given mostly vague guidelines to apply to tagging articles. Since it has been brought to my attention that my tagging is perceived as excessive, I am proposing the following guidelines:
 * 1) lr - I may apply lr only if there are two or more bare URLs, or URL references accompanied only by an abbreviated URL as the "title" of the reference  I am editing from a mobile phone ,  or if the automated references creation devices will NOT repair a multitude of broken links
 * 2) ods/otd - I may apply either ONE (and only ONE) ods tag to an article, or ONE (and only ONE) otd tag to an article [not both ods and otd in the same article]
 * 3) nr/urs/1r/+r/+rs - I may apply ONE (and only ONE) of the following five tags to a single article nr, urs, 1r, +r, +rs
 * 4) 2p/ic - Since these two tags imply a lack of references, they may be used in conjunction with one another on the same page, but not with any tags listed in Section 3
 * 5)  Deletion of unreferenced article sections - Unless I am reverting only existing vandalism, I shall not delete a section of an article unless it has been unreferenced for one year or longer. I shall not tag nor delete a legitimate track listing for a legitimate musical work.

I am willing to work toward a reasonable resolution, provided that I have at least some guidelines by which I should abide. All other things equal, requiring me to fix bare URL links, to add references, or update parts of an article is beyond what I am obligated to do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You simply don't understand what we are saying. What is the difference between one bare url and three bare urls that you can fix at the same time? None.  We are suggesting that you do something that can improve Wikipedia, rather than sticking tags into articles everywhere. Adding tags is meant to help improve articles, but your response suggests that you simply like sticking tags on, and improving articles is not the main concern why you do it. All you are saying is that we let you get on with what you want to do if you follow your own rules.  I don't think it will work (because your objective is not about improving articles), and it would become disruptive. Hzh (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Reply -, I am trying to work with you by making this proposal.
 * I have modified my proposal for Section 1. What if I am editing from a mobile phone for days at a time, which makes actually using Reflinks a lot more difficult?  I once placed lr on Rowyco, because the Refill application was broken, and I could not access Reflinks at that time.  What if the article is long, and crashes my browser?
 * WP:OUTDATED specifically permits the use of otd when one does not wish to update an article on their own. With that said, I shall try to limit my use of the template.
 * What should I do if I do not have the skill set to update nor add to a technically difficult article, but I want to alert people who might not read the talk page?
 * If I did not desire improved referencing of up to date material, I would not add any of the tags that I have mentioned nor create navigation boxes. Most of the time, when I add lr, the URLs are turned into proper references.  I have kept much of Texas Hippie Coalition and Myka Relocate's pages up to date with proper referencing.  Should I PROD, AFD or redirect articles outright without tagging them to allow for editors to add to them, if I am unable to do so?  I have had Only Man nominated for deletion only for the page to be expanded later on.  User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars added nn & lr to The Colourist (album) without adding more material to it.
 * Perhaps I should hold off on deleting entire sections for now.


 * Perhaps I should plan to cut back considerably on the amount of tags that I use, and will try to see to it that others do the same on articles that I write as well. I think that you are trying to say that tags are to be used either when the editor is modifying articles using a mobile phone, lacks the skill set to contribute, or after they have performed an exhaustive unsuccessful search for references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment -, ,
 * Are you going to discuss the drive by tagging of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2016 with User:I dream of horses? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of that page, but I'm all for you changing your tagging habits, even if, as Hzh pointed out, it is by your own rules again. I suppose sometimes it works that way though, because I don't think it would ever have been up to me to declare what you can or can't do.  Ss 112  14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, you are aware of this page now. If you are not discussing the drive by tagging of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, September 2016 with User:I dream of horses, then I am effectively being singled out for tagging articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jax, as many editors do it, it would be hard to have a problem with every user who did it. As far as I can see from that edit history, they've only edited it once and added one template to the top of the page. My main problem was—because we have edited a bunch of the same music topics—you blanking sections and editing them to add "citation needed" tags to every entry. I don't think I ever said I had a problem with "drive-by tagging" per se, although I can see that it is sometimes problematic. I suppose sometimes even I do "drive-by tagging" then although I usually do try to contribute something else.  Ss 112  14:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no serious issue with the tags in that article, they say exactly what the issues are (underlinked and only one source - probably should use the one source tag). Jax should understand that the issue is with him tagging all the articles without appearing to be interested in improving the article, in fact making the articles look bad - see for example what Jax did here - .  He put a ridiculous number of tags into a single article, when a single one will do. Adding many  tags into the table just distorted the table. It is the pattern of behavior we are talking about here - you just need to look at the edits by I dream of horses to see that she is helping to make the article better, Jax's however does not show that. We don't mind anyone putting a tag now and then, but when someone adds a large number of tags indiscrimately, we do object. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Reply - ,
 * This is the reason why I am proposing ground rules. With that said, I put the lr tag at the top of List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century because there are a multitude of references that need to be updated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, then when are you going to start following your own set rules? I was just on Sean Hayes (musician) and went to see who created the redirects for his albums, saw it was you and assumed you had created another double redirect or two, so visited your contributions page but then instead scrolled down and saw you removed whole sections from 1918 New Year Honours that I then saw you only tagged on July 31. Again, that's not even two months and you're still removing substantial amounts of content from articles despite saying you would stop. Or did this proposition only to apply to musical topics? Because it shouldn't.  Ss 112  16:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In Our Bones

 *  Comment -, at , you asked me to specify at what location within In Our Bones the additional references are needed. This entire thread has talked about me using too many tags, and has stated that using +R is sufficient for other users to find where more citations need to be added.  I am seeing a great deal of inconsistency in what I am being told, and it is worth noting that you have not made any comments on the 5 guidelines that I set forth above.  Please see Talk:Childish_Gambino_discography for a discussion on why a +R tag on Brave Enough is considered sufficient. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of +X for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article +X is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/+X until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mtlca listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mtlca. Since you had some involvement with the Mtlca redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SST flyer  11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:List of United States airmail stamps
I'm sorry to tell you but this is a horrible template you created because you have added so many links that have nothing to do with US airmail stamps, and are now adding to numerous articles. Besides which you could just link add a link to the List of United States airmail stamps to that appropriate articles if it is not there already. For instance, what has Z grill of 1868 to do with US airmail stamps? I know of no connection. ww2censor (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, this template is under construction, so be bold, and help make it better. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I was to be Bold I would scrap virtually all of it and I am sure you would not appreciate that. For this to be appropriately useful I would only keep those links that are actually to airmail stamps and that would likely be maybe a half dozen or so. That would make the template pretty much useless because those links can easily be added to the "See also" sections of the appropriate articles. If, as your header template says, it is "expansion or major restructuring" I don't how much more non-airmail related links you intend to add because I don't know of any more actual airmail related links you can find. ww2censor (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per your comments, I have retitled the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, if I put all of the stamp articles in USPS, the navbox will be enormous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's correct but USPS was only established in 1970 and are the copyright holders of US stamps from 1978, so the majority would be inappropriate in that template. Here are my suggestions if you are bent on making this template but I would remove it from all articles because it is far from ready being still in construction. I'm not sure what your philatelic knowledge is but I can't say I've seen any such contributions, other than adding templates to articles, so I don't know if you know what should and should not be included in such a template. Having renamed the template it has left some sort of redirect error link on some of the pages you added it to. Personally I would not have placed it in any articles while it is still in construction and I would have suggested asking for assistance, or at least input, at the Philately WikiProject, especially before putting it live. If this is supposed to be about stamps, then it would be better named "Postage stamps of the United States" and should link to Postage stamps and postal history of the United States. I think that stamps alone is a bit too vague a term. So constructively I think the current related section just seems like a rag bag of mixed items with no structure and as such overpowers the whole template. It needs some sort of logic and chronology, so maybe the main sections in sequence should be chronological, such as "Provisional stamps", "Classic issues" (probably pre-WWI or even 1900), "20th century pre-WWII", "20th century post-WWII", "Post 1978 (i.e. USPS period)" and maybe more sections if necessary so sections are not too big. Then have sub-sections of the more related articles and they could be grouped as "Topical issues", "General stamp articles", etc. If some of these section get too big they might be broken down into sub-sections as necessary or given separate sections. All mail function related articles that are US-related can of course be put into the USPS template that should only be added to US-related articles and NOT to worldview articles even if they include a US section. Such general mail and postal function articles might belong in the Postal system template if they are not already there. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you very much for your feedback. My knowledge of USPS and US postage stamps is indeed limited.  I thought that including it all in USPS would be a ginormous template, which is why I am making several navboxes.  I believe that "Postage stamps and postal history of the United States" is a large topic, I therefore planned to split any navboxes into separate ones for "stamps" and "history".  Though I do not know how to create sections, I will try to take your thoughts under advisement.  At List_of_postage_stamps, it reads "Main article: List of United States airmail stamps".  If to create urgency, you would like to start a conversation at WP:TFD, please feel free to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are already 5 continatal grouped philatelic templates, which despite their title are for the "postage stamps and postal history" of the world: Postal history of Africa, Postal history of Asia, Postal history of Europe, Postal history of Oceania, Postal history of the Americas amongst the other Category:WikiProject Philately templates. A previous single world version had sections and it is at Postal history by country so may be of some use to you in terms of construction. Note the subsections in the Europe section. I believe there is a help page that shows you how to do all this stuff. You have to consider what topics are philately and what is topics are postal service related. It is best not to mix the two. If you are doing a US version, you will see that most of the postal service related topics should be in the USPS template and, as you rightly say, stamps and history can be separated but even then it needs sections otherwise, when it is too cluttered, it is not so useful as a navbox. BTW, WP:TFD if not for construction issues but for deletion discussions. You could always consider making the template as complicated as Protected areas of California - pretty horrible imho. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 Baltimore shooting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Baltimore shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2016 Baltimore shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Pause with Template:List of United States Post Offices
Hey, I notice from my watchlist including this edit adding the template that there is a massive navigation template List of United States Post Offices which you have built up, and which you are adding to thousands of articles. Presumably that template mostly duplicates List of United States Post Offices list-article, except you are omitting the redlink items.

Hmm, this effort doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't seem like it serves readers because the template is just so vast, and I can't conceive of there being any readers who would choose to browse amongst post office articles by using the template. Readers who really might be interested in post offices are few, and those few would better navigate from the list-article. The list-article can provide photos and other information and show the individual ones in context (like you can see that there are many more redlink post offices in Colorado, currently, than there are bluelink ones). Any individual post-office article might have some link to the list-article alone, but there's no need to link to a couple thousand individual ones. I am seeing little/no benefits to doing this. Offhand adding the navigation template to thousands of articles seems somewhat like vandalism (sorry that's not exactly the right wording for it, but my impression is that this is hurting not helping). Or perhaps the edits constitute disruption to lots of watchlists, that is a cost of editors' attention. And this is setting up either future costs of maintaining the navigation list, e.g. as redlinks on the list-article turn blue. And/or it is setting up costs to readers of misdirecting them, of bringing them to an outdated navigation list when the list-article is simply better.

Are you seriously interested in post offices? If you are, then I'd be interested in chatting about other ways you could make a positive difference, e.g. perhaps by developing new post office articles where there are redlinks for National Register-listed ones, or perhaps by improving all the existing post office articles in some way. And are you so interested in post offices that you are committing to maintain the navigation template, updating it regularly when the list-article changes? Could you possibly be interested in helping to improve the list-article, first, or instead?

I see comments in another section about another big template that you developed. This all sort of seems like a problem. Is there positive sanction for you to be doing this, from some past discussion at some forum, say? I am a bit concerned. Could you pause your process of adding the template, in order to discuss this here or somewhere else? Please understand I am trying to be polite and to make this request politely. I would like to try to understand where you are coming from, or the like, if you would discuss this, rather than open a more negative proceeding such as an AFD on the template or an administrative noticeboard request that you be stopped somehow. sincerely, -- do ncr  am  20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have been creating navigation boxes regarding multiple subjects since about 2011 or so. I first created USPS, then created Postage stamps of the United States separately, as having those articles and the dozens of Post Offices inside of the former template would make it enormous.  This is why I created a separate navbox for List of United States Post Offices.  There is no way any person could monitor all of the changes to any of the USPS templates.  That being said, I am open to suggestions.  I would be happy to have the three navigation boxes discussed at WP:TFD so that we can put a couple more eyes on these items, as no one seems to be helping at WP:RT.  I don't think that it would be prudent to put all of the post offices inside of USPS.  Simon Property Group is in a situation similar to this.  I do not have the skill set to create sections within a navbox, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project anyway. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I too noticed this template and I already gave some advise on the Postage stamps of the United States template above. It appears you happen to decide on a template based on your own ideas that a template is needed and not because you know or understand the topic or there is an actual need. I don't think you took in any of my advise, especially about dumping the unfinished template into articles and before you got any feedback from others including the philately project but it is now already transcluded to 60+ articles. Certainly List of United States Post Offices is one of the most awful monster templates I have seen in a long time but now that you mention Simon Property Group maybe that one is close or on a par. I really don't see the benefit of you continuing to make such enormous templates, especially so disorganised though there is only one way i think you can organise this one. I was going to get some input about List of United States Post Offices before nominating it for discussion or even deletion because there is, imho, absolutely no point in having such an unwieldy template when we already have a useful List of United States Post Offices. That is what  seems to be saying too but maybe a pause is not enough. I know some editors do lots of work on their own and when that gets criticised or some work even deleted this can be disheartening and I don't want to do that to you but maybe a reevaluation of the usefulness of these template is what you really need. The other two postal templates mentioned have several unrelated topics all thrown together with no order in a "related section" as a dumping ground and some are even unnecessary, I'm sorry to say it but it just seems you have no real idea about the main topic itself. The reason I have not assisted with anything in the Postage stamps of the United States is that I don't really see usefulness in its current structure, I don't have the time to hold you hand and teach you how to reorganise it based on my advise when there are sufficiant help pages online and I really don't have the time to do it myself. Yeah I know I am being critical but that's how I see it. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment - There is a discussion taking place at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_3 regarding these 3 templates. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Candyland (musician)
Hi there. I'm not sure why Candyland (musician) is still a live article (see Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician)). Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, "Given the extensive reference bombing, I am applying WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article" --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But the article is still live. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Salary.com
Hi - Salary.com divested from IBM on January 1 of 2016, and I am trying to update the standalone company page to reflect that. The Kenexa page that it is currently connected to is already in the process of being edited. What do I need to validate all of this information? I want to create a full, complete Salary.com Wikipedia page. Thanks and looking forward to hearing back.

Mnollman (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, good day, WRT Salary.com, I suggest reading WP:YFA, WP:RS and WP:IDEALSTUB. You might also wish to start the "Salary.com" article at Kenexa under the "Salary.com" section, add a split section tag, and begin a discussion about the proposed article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ransom 2
Hello, Jax 0677. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ransom 2, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, History of Southwest Airlines, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Go ahead and split that article without a consensus, why don't you. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:AFD if you so choose. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Stretch Arm Strong
Template:Stretch Arm Strong has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician)
Can this page be deleted now? --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, after the histories are properly merged, so that all of the old material is still there. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The AfD was closed as "delete", but with re-creation allowed. That means the edit history should go. I'll delete the article in your user space as obviously it isn't needed any more. --Randykitty (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please restore User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician) and send through WP:MFD, or I will take the article to WP:DRV. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. This was deleted per WP:TNT after an AfD and only restored temporarily to enable you to create an acceptable article. That has happened, so the AfD decision applies. Feel free to take it to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have started a discussion at Deletion review/Log/2016 November 22. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Cornerstone of the Corner Store


The article The Cornerstone of the Corner Store has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * No content or sourcing

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ring on Every Finger for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ring on Every Finger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ring on Every Finger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kellymoat (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg
For you involvement in File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, I invite you to discuss this image. --George Ho (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of +X


A tag has been placed on +X, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - The   Magnificentist  13:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of +×


A tag has been placed on +×, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - The   Magnificentist  13:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Scratch Perverts
Template:Scratch Perverts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 NFL playoffs
Stop adding maintenance tags to this article. There is nothing wrong with it. Two sources verify the the television schedule as well as the way the playoffs work. In addition each game summary as a "preview" link that links to the NFL.com game center which will have the score after the game is completed. Nothing else needs verified and no other sources are needed.-- Rockchalk 717 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per WP:GNG, multiple, independent, reliable sources are required. Therefore, the 2p tag should not be removed from 2016–17 NFL playoffs until the issue is resolved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Things that need sourced in article: Time frame of playoffs, sourced in citation one. Dates and times of games: Sourced in citation 2. Game results: Sourced with an external link to the game summary on NFL.com. This same format has been used on each playoff page prior to beginning of the playoff. Nothing else on this article needs a source. Nothing more needs resolved. As each game is completed and information from these games are added, more sources will be added. But for the time being, this is sufficient and no more sources are needed. If you think there's things that need sources or use a "cite needed tag" or find the sources yourself. Don't just keep adding this tag. If we cannot come to a consensus on this we need to go to the NFL Project talkpage and engage other editors and there are admins in that project as well. Not only is this article fine, but that policy page link you provided, is for notability, not verifiability. The policy you're looking for is WP:PROVEIT which this page satisfies.-- Rockchalk 717 06:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Red Lamb


The article Red Lamb has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Article does not explain why the band is notable. Notability is not inherited from its members.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kellymoat (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Matthew Schultz page
Jax

Where do we go with the article on Matthew Schultz? Given the information, I still feel that a deletion would be appropriate. What are your thoughts? How do I proceed? Rudolph Steiner (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of United States Post Offices
Template:List of United States Post Offices has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. It is too huge to be useful. Hopefully you learned something from the process of creating it, but it is time now I believe for this to be deleted. do ncr  am  20:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dave Audé
Template:Dave Audé has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Daisy Coleman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daisy Coleman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Daisy Coleman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Paige Parkhurst for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paige Parkhurst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paige Parkhurst until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 02:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Heavy MONTRÉAL page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=762995338 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F762995338%7CHeavy MONTRÉAL%5D%5D Ask for help])

Nomination for merging of Template:Fujifilm
Template:Fujifilm has been nominated for merging with Template:Fujifilm photographic films. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. wbm1058 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Tamara Duarte listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tamara Duarte. Since you had some involvement with the Tamara Duarte redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

US philately template
Now that I notice your US post offices template has been deleted, I turned my mind to the US postage stamps template you had started and which I advised you about. I've done some work on a replacement, including a title change to encompass a better overview, as in the current form is very poorly organised. I'm not finished with it yet and will be asking some other philatelists for their input, but you can respond with any thoughts and any additions you think would improve it here as I am watching the page. It's at User:Ww2censor/sandbox. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, it looks quite good my friend. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)