User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 18

New Wave
How hard is it to at least add an infobox? Do you seriously not know how by this point? Or are you being lazy on purpose and using WP:IDEALSTUB as a handwave to justify your absolute laziness in article creation? Either do it the right way or not at all. You're just making more work for everyone else. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, it is not mandatory to put an infobox in an article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project by design, in which multiple users contribute to an article.  Wikipedia has many stubs, and redirecting an untagged and likely notable article with multiple references is like destroying the house while it is being built.  New Wave is expected to release in four days anyway, so the AFD is likely a waste of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't mean you get to half-ass everything. You seem to be using "infoboxes are not mandatory" as an excuse to make sub-par sub-stubs. Either learn to do an article right or don't do it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Annie clark listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Annie clark. Since you had some involvement with the Annie clark redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. f eminist 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Swim Team
You, as the author, have the burden to verify the sources. I was not disputing the actual information. The fact that you just copied it from one page to another without updating the access dates on the citations (which you have since remedied, thank you) confirms that you had not checked what you pasted into this article. The burden is on you. If you cannot handle the burden, do not create articles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, if you look carefully at Swim Team (album), you will see that all of the chart numbers had bare URLs for references, which I planned on converting to full references when I had some time. The other references did not verify anything, were extraneous, and I planned to remove them when I had more time.  Since tables are difficult to create and manipulate, I like to save the large table first, then delete from it later the sections that I do not need.  Please don't delete the whole chart section outright when every number in the table was verified by bare URLs which were compiled recently, just delete the references that are out of date.  Furthermore, please link on my talk page to the article to which you are referring. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How about removing them before you make the article, instead of leaving a half assed mess? Try sandboxing things first if you think tables are hard to make. Otherwise you're just making more work for everyone else when you just randomly slap shit together. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, in this case, I had to leave my computer after making the edit. User:Op47 once told me "No one is complaining (as far as I know) if you have to stop work for the night".  The references were not there before I made the article, nor were they there on my edit at 18:06, 24 October 2017.  Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Five Finger Death Punch discography
You went a little overboard with the [citation needed] here. If an album has an article, then there is no need to also have a citation within the discography table proving that the album exists (the Preemptive Strike EP). There was no need for a refimprove if only one or two small things needed a citation anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, at Five Finger Death Punch discography, the Preemptive Strike article did not have any sources aside from the Five Finger Death Punch internet site, which is a trivial first party reference. The live album had neither an article, nor a source.  I only used one large tag, the +R tag.  The CN tag shows where a reference is missing.  Also, you forgot to link to the article in question on my talk page, for my ease of access to that page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the album has an article, then there is no need to have another citation proving that the album exists. Its existence should be covered in the album's article. Discographies do not need secondary citations to prove that the albums exist, unless they are obscure independent releases. I removed one of the albums entirely because I was unable to verify its existence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Makin' This Boy Go Crazy
Once again you failed to update the access date for the peak chart position of this song when you created the article. You simply copied an pasted info from another page without verifying the source and updating the access date. An article you create in 2017 CANNOT have sources with access dates prior to the creation date. Please be more proactive in your article creations. I will continue to send your reminders EVERY TIME I see that you fail to do this. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, my apologies. However, the access date of 2014 came after the release date of the single, and is valid for the artist page.  Also, please link to "the article about which you speak" when you post on my talk page section.  Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Walker Hayes
Again. Unless there is significant reason to doubt their existence (bootlegs, unofficial early releases, etc.), then albums do not need citations merely to prove that they exist. Especially if their existence is already verified in the body of the article. I have added sources to the main text of the article proving that Reason to Rhyme and the SMACK EPs exist, so their existence does not to be verified a second time in the discography -- especially in a case like this where the discography is not its own article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Craig Paddock listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Craig Paddock. Since you had some involvement with the Craig Paddock redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2017
Hello, Jax 0677. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2017, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit 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 23:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Lillian Axe
The article has been restored. Further explanation on my talk page. Unsure if your requested ping worked due to that feature being introduced while I've been away from Wikipedia for some time and my not being overly familiar with it. -- Longhair\talk 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Benediction (band)
Template:Benediction (band) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman  14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reforged - Riding on Fire
Hi Jax, thanks for reverting the edit. Actually I accidentally removed the tag while closing the AfD. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 in country music listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 in country music. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 in country music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:My American Heart
Template:My American Heart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chapter Three: Yellow
Hello Jax 0677,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chapter Three: Yellow for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 Whispe ring  23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The Grass Roots Info Box
Hey Jax 0677, just wondering why you reverted my additions to the info box of The Grass Roots. At the state it was in before the additions (and now after) it makes it seem as though the group only had five studio albums, which is false. Also, what was wrong with "The River Is Wide" being added? It has its own article here, just like the other singles listed in the box. TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC) My mistake Jax, accidentally put infobox instead of template. The site in question is Template:The Grass Roots. I was also mistaken in the fact that you did something with the link to "The River Is Wide", so sorry there too. However, my position still stands for the album portion of my first post. Thank you for your response, I hope I have cleared up what I was trying to say. TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please link to the site in question when you post on my talk page. I did not modify the infobox for The Grass Roots. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, WP:WTAF. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you! TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dirt Road Driveway
I expanded Dirt Road Driveway for you. Turns out I have the album. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Vaquero (Aaron Watson album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Vaquero (Aaron Watson album), Ss112!

Wikipedia editor Jamez42 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I encourage adding an infobox and expanding the article if possible"

To reply, leave a comment on Jamez42's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jamez42 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Real Good Time
Hello, Jax 0677,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Real Good Time should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Real Good Time.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Colt Ford discography
...should be fully sourced now. I removed some content that I was unable to verify, including at least two supposed singles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you, to facilitate mobility, please link to the article in question when you post on my talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daniel Shaver.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Daniel Shaver.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Watson
The "Has reached Top 20 on country airplay" fact in Aaron Watson did not need a [citation needed]. This fact is cited later on in the article, under the discography. Intros do not need citations, because they are merely summarizing facts verified later on in the body of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the discography did not need a [citation needed] either. The citation verifying the titles of his albums is under the heading "Album details". Was this an oversight on your part? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, an oversight indeed. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Nealhooper (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, did you mean to write something? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I Don't Believe We've Met
Your placement of an urs on I Don't Believe We've Met was unnecessary. Unless the album is very obscure, has not yet been released, or if there is a known dispute on song authorship (e.g., songs ghost written by someone, typos in the Allmusic listing), then no citations are necessary for the track listing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Acoustic Classics II) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Acoustic Classics II, Jax 0677!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A useful redirect, but unfortunately doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you for the email. I only created the redirect, someone else made the article.  If you would, please discuss the issue with that user. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Jax! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

discography
For like the billionth time, albums generally do not need citations just to prove that they exist. Especially if they have an article. On Randy Rogers Band discography, you do not by any means need a [citation needed] just to prove that the album exists -- because it HAS AN ARTICLE. I appreciate your efforts, but please be a little more careful and a little less zealous. If it has an article of its own, it does NOT EVER need a secondary citation to prove its existence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please do not put CN nor +R on my talk page.  Live at Cheatham Street Warehouse and  Like It Used to Be do not have articles nor chart positions, and therefore, do not have references. "Somebody Take Me Home", "Buy Myself a Chance", "Steal You Away", "Last Last Chance", "Trouble Knows My Name", "Fuzzy", "Speak of the Devil" and "Satellite" do not have chart positions, nor are they listed as singles at the article page.  The first five music videos also do not have any citations. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why the fuck did you put a [citation needed] on Roller Coaster when it does have an article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, WP:CIVIL, the article had no citations. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

An apology
I redact my harsher statements above. I was in an extremely bad mood yesterday and should not have taken it out on you. I appreciate your effort in improving music articles, but sometimes I think you're a little too overzealous in tagging things. I would be glad to teach you how to find sources for yourself so you don't have to just spray [citation needed]s everywhere. Most of the music videos can easily be found on the artist's official Vevo account or cmt.com. If you try entering "name of song" site:cmt.com into Google, it should give you the video instantly. Non-charting singles are usually harder to verify, I'll admit. And 99% of the time, an album will be listed on Allmusic -- just type the artist's name into allmusic, or do "name of artist" "name of album" site:allmusic.com in Google, and it should bring it up. Could you please try to do some of that for me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you very much for your email. I understand your concern, however, the burden for providing citations falls on the person adding the material.  I have even been scolded for blanking sections that have been unreferenced for over one year, which was a guideline that I recommended here.  When people get tired of adding references that should have been there in the first place, they put CN tags on the article.  If I do not wish to add CN to everything, I will add it to the header of a table to indicate that none of the entries have a reference.  I have been asked by some users to put CN tags at specific locations instead of simply adding +R or +RS to the top of the article or section.  When I deleted an unreferenced section on Martin Garrix discography, the section was revived with proper references.  Otherwise, why do we have these tags at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with trying to find the sources yourself, either. As I said, about 90% of the time, what you're looking for can be found in literally two seconds. Burden is a thing, but so is fixing it yourself. Also, can I please ask you not to tag tracklists as unreferenced ever again? There should be no reason to ever doubt the veracity of a track listing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you very much for your email. Instead of tagging the entire track list, I will tag the parts of that track list that can not be easily found.  That being said, it seems quicker to CN tag than to reference, especially when doing so on multiple articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is there should almost never be a reason to doubt a track listing's veracity. For instance, ...And Justice for All (album) is a Featured Article, and the only portion of the tracklist that has a citation is the bonus tracks on the re-issue. Something like that would need a source, yes, but almost never the main tracklist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cash Cash
To respond to your edit summary, the request had been made on my talk page. And while I'm neutral on it, your edit summary alluded to a 2016 discussion as a consensus in your favor. That discussion consisted of you proposing it, and me saying I was neutral back then too. So all the discussions up to this point was you in favor of it in 2016, and someone else was against it in 2018. So just an FYI, if the other person wants to push forward, you need to engage them in a discussion. (Probably on the talk page or at a WikiProject, not AFD, as it's a merge/redirect situation that doesn't really require AFD.) Sergecross73   msg me  04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Nena (band)
Template:Nena (band) has been nominated for merging with Template:Example. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Who
I saw you added a who to an article about a single because the lede didn't indicate the name of the performer. Doesn't that template usually signify a weasel word such as "experts have shown", or such. The link seems to imply that anyhow. I was able to add and wikilink the performer's name, but maybe clarify would be better suited to this situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please link to the article in question when you post on a talk page. I think that who could be used if we do not know who the person is, but, I have been wrong before. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 flu pandemic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 flu pandemic. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 flu pandemic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – MP Wiki Edits (questions?) 15:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ref tags
Just an FYI, when you can see that I'm obviously actively working on some on-going projects (ie things related to Nothing More currently), you don't really need to re-add the link rot tag over and over again. I mean, there's nothing stopped you from doing it, but you're probably going to start irritating the people who go around formatting refs all the time when you do it multiple times a day at the same article. It's not like its an urgent issue that need instant cleanup, like WP:BLP violations or something. It can be done in bulk at the end. Just a thought. Sergecross73  msg me  20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you very much for your email. I guess I might want to keep it to once per week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-Everything" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect &. Since you had some involvement with the "Anti-Everything" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  22:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

+X listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect +X. Since you had some involvement with the +X redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Za  wl  20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2018 government shitdown


A tag has been placed on 2018 government shitdown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jax 0677, thanks for your work. I'm troubled by some redirects you've created that include the phrase "government shitdown" in the title. There are no reliable sources that use that term and seems incredibly implausible as a typo, but has noted that because those redirects exist, the search bar suggests those search terms. I'd be glad to hear your reasons for those redirects, but I am hoping that you will agree to G7 them. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

2013 government shitdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2013 government shitdown. Since you had some involvement with the 2013 government shitdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sky Warrior  22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Anna Turpin listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anna Turpin. Since you had some involvement with the Anna Turpin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

EDMXXL listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EDMXXL. Since you had some involvement with the EDMXXL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Shitdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shitdown. Since you had some involvement with the Shitdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Government shitdown
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 government shutdown listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 government shutdown. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 government shutdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Government Shitdown
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Straight from the Barrio
I'm just going to repeat my request to you from last October here, because you seem to have forgotten about it. I asked you to stop simply copying and pasting chart info from an artist's discography page to a new article. Will I realized and everyone knows you are too lazy any effort into reformatting, the least you can do when creating a new article is check/confirm the sources and update the access dates on the citations. How can an article created in January 2018 use sources that says they were accessed in 2016? This tells me you are not verifying the info, which falls on you as the author. If you can't be bothered to do the simplest things, you might as well not do it at all. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, as I think I have mentioned before, it is courteous to link to the article in question (Straight from the Barrio) when you post on a talk page. The access date for the reference was dated after the album was released, therefore, the reference is not completely out of date, and the peak chart positions were correct.  Also, "Will I realized and everyone knows you are too lazy any effort into reformatting" is not proper grammar, so please use proper grammar when posting.  As I mentioned before, "According to WP:IDEALSTUB, I need only provide sufficient context for the information".  Furthermore, this edit is a violation of WP:CIVIL.  Finally, why was the release date AND RECORD LABEL removed from the article without justification?  This also happened at Pop Evil. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just do a better job and no one would complain about your work. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, same for you. BTW, the label and release date are still missing from Straight from the Barrio. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then create an infobox where that information can then be easily found by readers. Be useful for once and do something that benefits Wikipedia. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, same for you. Per WP:IDEALSTUB, creating stub articles is useful, and I have been useful to Wikipedia on multiple occasions.  Deleting release dates and record label information without justification is not useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also requesting that you stop doing this. You did the same thing to an article I recently created, and even after you "cleaned it up", it still was sloppily done and featured a list of a bunch of charts that it didn't even chart on. Not only does it look sloppy, but it's not even necessary - if a band/artist has its own discography article, and the respective single has its own article, song listings don't need to be listed at all, let alone like this. The chart positions should just be listed at the song article, which it already is. Now, counting the October discussion listed above, that's now 3 people who oppose you doing it like this. Please stop.  Sergecross73   msg me  18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please do not use a pronoun without being clear about the thing to which you are referring (exactly what you would like for me to do differently). Many articles have information about its singles, and also have chart information for the album.  If I do not have the skill set to list the chart positions in the exact different format that is ideal, WP:IDEALSTUB permits me to place the info in the article in a reasonable manner that conveys the information.  The access date in question was after the release date of the album, which means that it is accurate enough.  I was editing from a mobile phone when I edited Ember.  Legitimate information about albums is being removed from articles without justification.  In some cases, I am pasting the information in the easiest manner that I know how, then whittling away at it piece by piece, so that the table does not look disfigured. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the "skill set" to do charts right, then don't do it. Simple as that. Wait for someone else to do it right. Because right now, you're not only wasting your time in doing it wrong, you're wasting other's time by creating a mess to cleanup or delete. It's a net loss for everyone involved.
 * To illustrate in the most specific way possible, let's look at the Breaking Benjamin situation.
 * You made this change, adding a singles chart at their album article Ember. Stop doing this, and similar edits to it.
 * It is unnecessary because it is redundant. The chart is already present at Breaking Benjamin discography and "Red Cold River", the song's article. (and properly formatted at Red Cold River, for that matter.) We don't need to list the charts in a third place.
 * Your chart was poorly done. Look at it again. You added six charts, even though it only charted on two.  You added charts like the Canadian Hot 100, and the US Pop 100, where the song has not charted. If the song did not chart on these charts, they should not be listed. Don't do this.
 * I hope this version was more clear. I didn't think I needed to go into such detail when you've been talked to about this before. Sergecross73   msg me  20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have added chart information to Outline in Color, but this information has not yet been formatted into a chart. Is it acceptable to list the information using "text"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Charts would be fine too, since there's no band discography article. But just text like that is fine. Sergecross73   msg me  03:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed on "clarification needed"
What seems to be the problem here? I'd be happy to clarify, but it already appears clear to me. Maybe "Fourteen other people were shot, three of them critically wounded; four more hurt themselves fleeing."? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, January 26, 2018 (UTC) "Eighteen other people were injured, fourteen by bullets and three critically" means 18 > 14 + 3. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply - ,
 * No. It means of the eighteen who were injured and lived, fourteen were injured by bullets and three were injured critically. Division, not addition. The three critically injured were presumably also shot, since it's quite hard to almost kill yourself by accidentally running into something or falling from your own height. It used to use a comma instead of an "and". Would removing "and" imply less of a "plus" vibe to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Can you unblock please

 * , I am not in a position to unblock anyone. Please visit WP:BLOCK for more information about requesting an unblock. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes
You don't have to set both the navbox itself at "state=autocollapse" and when you add the template to each article as you just did with Daniel Lanois. All you have to do is read the collapsible option you add to every navbox you create: by setting the navbox to "state=autocollapse", it does the same thing as if you set the template on each page with, which means you "autocollapsing" twice for no reason. That's the purpose for the collapsible option in the first place. For a guy who does not like to waste keystrokes, I'm surprised you would giving extra work for yourself. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you for letting me know. I copy from the line "|state=autocollapse: " , then paste that into articles, which is easier than typing the brackets by myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why you put in the "state=autocollapse" into individual articles when adding the navbox. By setting the template to "state = " (or more simply "state=autocollapse") that is the equivalent of adding the navbox to an article with that parameter. In fact, you don't even have to include the "state" parameter at all in the navbox template, because that is the default anyway. So for example, in Legendary Shack Shakers, you don't need "state = " in the template itself or to include "state=autocollapse" (i.e. ) to individual articles, and in fact that defeats the entire purpose of having the "state" parameter in the template in the first place. All you are copying is the example of what the "autocollapse" setting does, not how it is supposed to look in articles. Just stop adding the "autocollapse" option to both navbox templates and individual articles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I think you are being nitpicky. Having "state=autocollapse" in both the navbox and article serves the same purpose as having it only in the navbox.  It is easier to copy and paste from the text on the template page than it is to manually type the brackets. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you are the laziest editor on Wikipedia and do things in the best interest of yourself instead of the encyclopedia even if it just means a couple of keystrokes in one article. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, WP:CIVIL. How exactly are my edits "in the best interest of [myself]", and how do they not benefit the encyclopedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a long history of annoying other editors including multiple ANIs and numerous complaints on your talk pages because you'd rather do things your way over what's best. How does creating more work for others by you doing the most minimal amount of work help anyone, especially readers? -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, using words such as "moron", "lazy" and "half-ass" are also annoying. The term "annoying other editors" is a point of contention.  To the best of my recollection, I have only had about 3 ANIs (one of them successful) in just over one decade.  In recent history, I have created hundreds of acceptable navigation templates which assist readers in migrating between articles, and have made several articles about musicians and musical ensembles.  Furthermore, you have not proven that my edits are "in the best interest of [myself]", nor have you proven that they do not benefit the encyclopedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Link rot
Stop tagging pages with link rot when there is only a single citation that has a bare url. It's not helpful. It is much quicker to fix the link rot for one cite than it is to tag it with link rot. Either fix it or don't do anything at all. -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per WP:PLRT, "As you edit, if an article has bare URLs in its citations, fix them or at least tag the References section with linkrot as a reminder to complete citation details as above, and to categorize the article as needing cleanup". Additionally, it was discussed here that if "I am editing from a mobile phone", I may apply LR to an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Sharptooth
Hello, Jax 0677,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Sharptooth should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Sharptooth.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Enwebb (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

TWIMEN listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TWIMEN. Since you had some involvement with the TWIMEN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 05:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Neaera (band) list of studio albums
Dear Jax 0677, I have got a question regarding Template:Neaera. I have seen, that you removed the 2013 album Ours is the Storm from the album list. I only noticed later that the same (insertion by somebody, revert by you) already happened in 2014 - sorry. Now my question: what is the reason for not including the album in the list? Thanks, Joerg Bader (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: The album Ours is the Storm is mentioned in Neaera (band) and referenced there with a link to its chart position. I don't know how one could/why one should reference the album in the template.
 *  Reply -, Ours is the Storm does not have an article, and for that reason, I removed it from the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I understand your reason, it does make sense in most settings. However, in cases like this specific one I do not agree completely. To my mind, it makes the navbox appear incomplete and misleading. One often has information without articles in navbox, e.g. some releases and most of the band members in Template:Tokio Hotel. I am not that experienced with wiki-navboxes: Can you hint me to a wiki manual where it is written which information is only allowed to be in a navbox if it has an article? Joerg Bader (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, WP:WTAF and WP:EXISTING. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links! I didn't find these pages on my own.
 * To my mind, the only missing album in Neaera's Template would meet the guidelines "Adding red links to navigation templates is tolerated when the missing article(s) are part of a set or series, and the template mostly consists of blue links to real articles." and "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." If you reconsider the matter at some point, I would be happy if you would include Ours is the Storm into the navbox. However, I do not insist on that (and am not knowledgeable/motivated enough to start an article about Ours is the Storm by myself). Joerg Bader (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dead to Fall
Template:Dead to Fall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Sandstein  19:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

About this
So a Three Days Grace song called Time of Dying got a Gold certification from the RIAA recently. The song is off of the One-X album, but it is not a single. Would it make sense that I put that song in an "Other charted/successful songs" table like I did in the description above. For some reason, the RIAA calls it a single even though it didn't get a single release. What's your thought on all of this, because it wouldn't be good to leave a certification like this hidden from the discography section. ULTRA-DARKNESS :) 2 CHAT  00:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, if what you are saying is true, and you can provide references, until someone proves that it is a single, it should probably go under "Other charted/successful songs". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft page "Alessandro Mocellin"
Good morning, is there any specific section of this draft page that requires more citations for verification? This is to focalize the insertion of appropriate sources. Thank you for your precious job. Dragalog 502305 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, is there a specific reason why you are contacting me about Draft:Alessandro Mocellin?  seems to be the one who added the tag to this article.  Thanks!  Also, when you post to a talk page, please link to the article in question when doing so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I tried to ask a question, but it sent me to your talk page and not to the one of . The page is Draft:Alessandro_Mocellin. Dragalog 502305 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  Reply -, I see that a lot additional citations and reliable sources are needed as current citations about Draft:Alessandro_Mocellin is not strong enough to be notable. Mauritiuslover (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, , if the page is moved to article space, it might be deleted at AFD per WP:NBIO. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Francis James Child
Template:Francis James Child has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ibadibam (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Happens Like That
Hello, Jax 0677,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Happens Like That should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Happens Like That.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, wrote the actual article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey! The above is a completely automated template, so I'm not sure why it put it on your talk page instead of Shamus248's. Thanks for pinging them! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, the template posted to my page, because I created the initial edit, which at the time, was only a redirect.  created the first sentence of the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

JOYFUL (album) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JOYFUL (album). Since you had some involvement with the JOYFUL (album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  22:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

JOYFUL (X Ambassadors album) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JOYFUL (X Ambassadors album). Since you had some involvement with the JOYFUL (X Ambassadors album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  22:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uproar Festival
Template:Uproar Festival has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I'll take some time out to read everything and will let you know if I have any questions. Best wishes. LXV (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. It was helpful. AllTimeChampion17 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you. To which advice are you referring? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)