User talk:JDDJS/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Are you seriously doing this?

Are seriously gonna redirect every episode page? I spent a lot of time on those and you just do that? They are in much better shape than they were, and they won't get improved being redirects. You just sit in your basement and destroy other peoples work? Koala15 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Responded on your talk page, but for the record, adding one or two sources is not what I would consider hard work. And they existed as articles for years without anyone trying to improve them. JDDJS (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
First off, i'm sorry to break it to you but you don't have the authority to just boldly redirect the pages. Your just another random know it all editor. And i will try best to improve them, but no one wins when you edit war with me its just childish. And Wikipedia is about conducting yourself professionally. Koala15 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, how is saying "You just sit in your basement and destroy other peoples work?" being professional? I was very professional. And I redirected those pages years ago, and while some people disagreed, the overall consensus was to redirect them. JDDJS (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is your authority to do this? Your not even an admin. They are in much better shape then they were back then. Now i am gonna revert these, and you have every right nominate them for deletion if you want. But edit warring only causes more problems. I can't trust a guy that would edit war this much. Koala15 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

side point, it's you're not an admin. It takes 2 people to edit war, so get off your high horse. Adding one reference about the reception is not "much better shape". It's slightly better. I already had multiple discussions about this, but if you feel the need to have it again, we'll have at List of American Dad! episodes. JDDJS (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem like an extremely unreasonable person that i would never want to meet, but that's neither here nor there. But the fact that you just want to take it in your own hands and revert every page is unacceptable on any article. Koala15 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I already had consensus. You were the one who edited against consensus. I am being very reasonable. I left the one with 3 sources alone even though I don't agree with those. I offered a compromise, that you turned down. And most importantly, I'm the one who stopped the edit war. You were going to keep it going on. And I started a discussion at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes to resolve the issue. JDDJS (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You had a consensus from 3 years ago, these articles are in much better shape now. They may not be up to your standards, but they are in decent shape. I'm the type of guy that try's to improve the encyclopedia, your the type that just wants to take away from it. I was hoping some editors would try improve them, cause I'm sure that there is info around to add to these articles. Koala15 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

They're not in much better shape not now. All you did was add one or two sources about reception. That is slightly better shape. And they were around for years without anyone trying to improve them, why should it be any different now? Anyway, the discussion at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes is where the discussion about this is taking place. Feel free to say your opinion there. JDDJS (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well i find that offensive, take a look at them in the page history. It was a disaster, at least i added sources. I can't find a lot of info on these earlier episodes, but then again i don't have the DVD'S there is probably a lot of info on commentary tracks and whatnot. Why not add to them if you can do so much better? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort WP:SOFIXIT. Koala15 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't want them to be articles, so I'm not going to try to fix them. The fact that you can't find info on them suggests that they don't need full articles. The ratings are already included in the season page, so you are not adding any new info. And I'll say it for one final time: GO TO Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes#Redirect_of_episodes to continue this discussion. Currently only one editor has commeneted there besides me (btw, he agrees with me). Whatever is the consensus, we're both going to have to respect it. JDDJS (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"I don't want them to be articles, so I'm not going to try to fix them." That type of attitude doesn't belong here, i can tell you that. Koala15 (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of International Management

You are invited to revisit the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of International Management to see if you wish to withdraw the nomination. --Bejnar (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tony Award Discussion

Hello - there is a discussion happening at the bottom of this page [[1]] about if the nominations list for Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play should have character names for all nominees. I think the character names are an important part of the list and should be there. The creator of the list refuses to add them because it is a "Featured List" of his. Let us know your thoughts on this. Thanks! HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

What was your rush to redirect them so soon? The discussion was not even finished. But whatever ill just recreate them when i find info for those. Koala15 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you just revert more? I was in the middle of working on those. You have no authority to keep making bold moves like this. Koala15 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes was to redirect them, so I do have the authority to do so, and it's not bold when you have consensus. JDDJS (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
3 editors kind of agreeing with you is barely a consensus. Koala15 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Only 3 editors agreed with me, but nobody besides you disagreed with me. Most likely, there won't be a lot of more editors joining the discussion, so the current consensus is clearly to redirect. Sorry if you don't like it. JDDJS (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but you act like there's a deadline to end the discussion. You could have waited to see if anyone else commented before redirecting a bunch of articles. Koala15 (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If more editors decide to join the discussion and agree with you, the articles can be recreated, but the discussion started over a week ago, 5 editors participated in it, and 4 agreed to redirect, so that's what is going to happen for now. JDDJS (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would really rather have you nominate them for deletion and let others decide. Koala15 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Others have decided. There is a consensus here. There was a consensus to keep them redirected before you recreated them. I'm not going to nominate dozens of articles for deletion when there is already an established consensus. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the articles are going to stay redirected until consensus changes or until somebody actually improves the articles with multiple references and useful information. You're just going to have to accept that. JDDJS (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are you redirecting articles that have a good amount of information in them? I think you should nominate them for deletion, cause i don't trust your judgement. Koala15 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

They don't have a good amount of information. All they have is plot and one or two reviews. None of the articles I redirected had more than 5 references, and I don't recall any having even that much. It's been established at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes that just a plot summary and one or two reviews is not enough to prove notability. Now stop pestering me about this issue. There was consensus to redirect the American Dad articles without significant information before you recreated them all, and it's been established that consensus has not changed since you recreated them all. So let it go. You can use a WP:SANDBOX to improve the articles so that they actually establish notability, but that's all you can do about it, unless consensus changes. JDDJS (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles weren't that bad, you obviously just have some sort of hatred for episode articles that are not up to your standards. And there was no consensus. Koala15 (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm against articles that don't show notability. Having less than 5 references and just a mention of one or two reviews is bad shape. And whether you like it or not, there is consensus at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes. Nobody but you want to keep the articles. So please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. JDDJS (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)-
Nah, this discussion hasn't come to an end. But this ain't over. ;) Koala15 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marvel Universe Live!, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Electro and Hydra. 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) 09:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gone Girl (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller. 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) 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Mixed" scores.

Since you don't seem to understand what the concept of "mixed" is when it comes to video game scores, let me spell it out for you. When we talk about a game that got "mixed" reviews, that means it got scores within the midrange. This usually means games that got scores of about 4-6/10, or if you prefer using the star system, between two and four stars out of five....basically, between the "good" scores and the "bad" scores. Alternatively, it could mean a game that got some good scores, but at the same time got some bad scores too.

If you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that a lot of the games listed as having "mixed" reviews tend to have scores ranging around 4/10 to 6/10, with some possibly higher or lower. Playstation All-Stars did not get those reviews. It got 6/10 to about 8/10. That clearly indicates it got favourable reviews. It doesn't mean great (which would be anywhere between 7/10 and 10/10), it just means it wasn't considered "bad". Do you understand now? 85.210.178.27 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I advise you look at Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time. Notice how the scores listed also include a 6/10 and a C, like PSAS did, yet it is listed as "generally positive", not "mixed to positive". Therefore, PSAS should be the same. 85.210.178.27 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC
I'm done with arguing with you. I won't revert it again. But I do want to point that Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is a very different case. PSAS has 4 scores less than a 7, a C and only two scores equivalent to an 8/10. Sly Cooper only has one review less than a 7 and one C, while it has two 8/10 and two scores equivalent to a 9/10. So, it clear that Sly Cooper has much better reviews than PSAS. JDDJS (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The Simpsons Game has received very similar reviews to PSAS and it is listed as having "mixed to positive" reception, and that's a featured article. JDDJS (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, which is why Sly Cooper is listed as "generally positive", not "generally favourable". There is a difference between positive and favourable. Also, you seem to be missing the word "generally", which means "for the most part". 85.210.178.27 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alice Wetterlund

She's much bigger now; please consider removing the PROD. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's already gone and I have no intentions on nominating it again. JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from User:Emperorofthedaleks

Hello JDDJS, I'm new to Wikipedia and I have been editing the Italians in the United Kingdom page and i thought the image in the infobox would be better as a collage like the one on the English American page, I think you would need one of the photo box or gimp tools for the computer, but I don't have these and am not too sure on how to do this collage, so I would really appreciate it if you could do it, or if you can't but know someone who can and ask them to do it that would be a real help. If you could merge the individual images below into a single image I think it would really benefit the page. I will give you the images I've got so far:

JDDJS/Archive 3

Thank you--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Guidance Please

Greetings, you may remember me from almost 4 years ago as the creator of the "Equals Three" episodes page that was ultimately deleted. I'm just curious as if you were to know if there was a possible way to get the article page somehow back so that I can transfer it to the Equals Three wiki page. Because the possibility of starting completely from scratch is quite daunting and would demand a lot of time and energy, time which I have little of at the moment. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Babelcolour5 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@midnight

Would you mind chiming in on the Talk Page about the proposed move back to "@midnight with Chris Hardwick"? The other editor seems to just want it there and have blinders on that every site tends to use the short and common name. JesseRafe (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ugh," "Party Pooper Pants," and "Hello Bikini Bottom!"

Why do you revert my edits? Please stop reverting my edits. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the real question is why did you revert my edits? Those episodes are not notable and there were no sources out of universe information. Episode articles that consist solely of plot serve no purpose. JDDJS (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Krusty Krab Training Video"

Why do you reverting my edit? Please stop reverting my edit, thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making articles for episodes that aren't notable. Thanks. JDDJS (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Bierman

I've added a few more references would you mind check out my edits? Thank you --TianLane (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show episodes

You keep resetting that The Cleveland Show season 1 episodes including "Da Doggone Daddy-Daughter Dinner Dance", "Birth of a Salesman", "Cleveland Jr.'s Cherry Bomb", "Ladies' Night", "From Bed to Worse" and "A Cleveland Brown Christmas" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 1)" and the season 3 episodes including "BFFs" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 3)", even through I can not see summaries, plots, cultural references, receptions, trivia sections, references, external links, expansions, and the others about each episodes anywhere. I have re-added it back to each episodes of the seasons, but you keep redirecting it back to each season page where the episode is aired on each seasons. I think that the article or section requires expansions or is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. XPanettaa (talk) 15:08, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

Trivia sections do not belong on Wikipedia. Cultural references are debatable. And those episodes that I have redirected only had 2 or 3 references and one or 2 reviews. It has been determined multiple times that articles in shape like that should be redirected. JDDJS (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. You keep resetting that The Cleveland Show season 1 episodes including "Da Doggone Daddy-Daughter Dinner Dance", "Birth of a Salesman", "Cleveland Jr.'s Cherry Bomb", "Ladies' Night", "From Bed to Worse" and "A Cleveland Brown Christmas" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 1)" and the season 3 episodes including "BFFs" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 3)", even through I can not see summaries, plots, cultural references, receptions, references, external links, expansions, and the others about each episodes anywhere. I have re-added it back to each episodes of the seasons, but you keep redirecting it back to each season page where the episode is aired on each seasons. If you redirect a episode page where the episode is aired on each seasons, I can not see summaries, plots, cultural references, receptions, references, external links, expansions, and the others on each episode pages. I think that the article or section requires expansions or is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. XPanettaa (talk) 21:46, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to say. What I'm saying is that the information in the articles is not enough to justify the episodes getting their own page. I have had this same discussion before. If you want to expand the articles, then use a sandbox. JDDJS (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't use a sandbox, I said, If you redirect a episode page where the episode is aired on each seasons, I can not see summaries, plots, cultural references, receptions, references, external links, expansions, and the others on each episode pages. I think that the episode article or section requires expansions or is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. So why do you reset that The Cleveland Show season 1 episodes including "Da Doggone Daddy-Daughter Dinner Dance", "Birth of a Salesman", "Cleveland Jr.'s Cherry Bomb", "Ladies' Night", "From Bed to Worse" and "A Cleveland Brown Christmas" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 1)" and the season 3 episodes including "BFFs" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 3)"? XPanettaa (talk) 16:20, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the notability guide lines. This is the last time that I will say this: those episodes have been redirected because they have not been established as notable. There are not enough of references and out universe information. If you want to see more information on these episodes, try the this wikia because they have different rules there. However, on Wikipedia, it has been established that they should be redirected unless the articles are significantly improved. I am done explaining this. If you still don't understand, I'm not sure if you belong on Wikipedia. JDDJS (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I see it. You said that "those episodes have been redirected because they have not been established as notable. There are not enough of references and out universe information". So what should I do to make those episodes for the series page notable or significantly improved? XPanettaa (talk) 16:13, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show episodes season 3 & 4 episodes

Hey there. Why do you revert my edits, reset that The Cleveland Show season 3 episodes including "Skip Day" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 3)" and the season 4 episodes including "BFFs" is redirected to "The Cleveland Show (season 3)"? Please stop reverting my edits because I'm working on it to add information and reliable sources about the episode. I found the information about the episode "California Dreamin' (All the Cleves are Brown)", the information about the episode "Skip Day" and I found the information about this episode called "The Hangover: Part Tubbs" on The Cleveland Show Wiki. Take a look http://cleveland.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hangover_Part_Tubbs, http://cleveland.wikia.com/wiki/Skip_Day and http://cleveland.wikia.com/wiki/California_Dreamin%27

XPanettaa (talk) 20:36, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Wikias are not valid sources. And even if they were, this wikia still will not be useful because it does not contain any out universe information or references, and that is the information that you would need if the episodes were to have their own page. Here is an example of a quality episode article New Kidney in Town. While the articles don't have to be that good, they need to be shown to be heading towards that level. JDDJS (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So what is "out universe information"? XPanettaa (talk) 16:08, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so how can I add "out universe information" to the episode page? XPanettaa (talk) 18:24, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Could you check to see if the reference format is correct? I certainly do not want the effort of setting this up gone to waste. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_FE_Soto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deenaw27 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Shall I add more references to episodes that has not enough references? XPanettaa (talk) 20:38, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I said; shall I add more references to episodes that has not enough references whatever you like it or not? XPanettaa (talk) 21:52, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
I'll say it again; shall I add more references to episodes that has not enough references whatever you like it or not? XPanettaa (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
Am I going to add more references to episodes that has not enough references or not? XPanettaa (talk) 16:31, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Brink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernard White. 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) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trainwreck (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maggie Lawson's

Why do you say that Maggie Lawson and Ben Koldyke are married when in fact she's dating James Roday. Where did you for that crap information Hadgj (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC

First of all, I never once said that. The only edit I ever made to her page was a minor one to remove a word that wasn't needed. Second of all, the source is right there next to his name. JDDJS (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for removing the block on "iHuman"

Dear NawlinWiki;

Sorry for the inconvenience. As a new user, I may make a lot of mistakes when created an article. Please suggest: what I should do for correct my mistake and on which condition you can remove the block on "iHuman". If possible, I'll send the draft of my paper. Please send reply to [email protected].

Sincerely yours

Gao Rong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusdengao (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Anomaly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Cox. 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) 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi JDDJS, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

help me XCBusa

Hello, how can I save the page xcbusa from speedydeletion? Im new to wikipedia, if you can help me would be great! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicheleMarchiVidi (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bonnie Wright may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:English female models]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Javier Muñoz (actor)

I admit that I ought to have sourced the article better before removing your PROD. Thing is, I've seen heard him hold a Broadway audience in the palm of his hand, and I got a little enthusiastic. You really should book tickets. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Country Artist"

I already a message as to why I think Luke Bryan should be classified as bro. Simply put, if you think he is country, then Florida Georgia Line and Cole Swindell should be classified as country as well. --Jack Gaines (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said not to classify Swindell FGL as Country. And I explained on the talk page why Bryan is country. JDDJS (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I was using your logic to classify him. In regards to your point, Luke has released a multitude of singles that are considered bro, similar to Florida Georgia Line. Putting into consideration "Dirt", "Confession", "Stay", and their Anything Like Me EP, I don't see why FGL is classified exclusively as Bro, while Luke Bryan is classified as country. --Jack Gaines (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

hello

I want you to recover my Ubroskart page which I have created yesterday. And you are telling about i've deleted the " speedy deletion tag". For that I would like to tell that, there was a code of some 5/6 characters and I could not recognize it and it accidentally got deleted.

But i also assure you that i have already contested the Speedy Deletion contest and written my reasons in Talk page. But you have been so arrogant to even respond it too and rather you have deleted the page. That's not fair.

You should put the speedy deletion tag in known format rather than some code. How can a beginner like me can know. And if you're not considering the minor mistakes of a beginner then how can they get scope to develop.

So just recover my page so that I can further edit and complete my page. Dr.suaro 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.suaro (talk • contribs)

Reference new listing Gary Zenker

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly but you said to leave a message here and this is the only way I could figure that out. You can feel free to delete it after reading.

I feel that the listing for Gary Zenker IS valid. He's been involved in publishing a large number of books, both writing and editing. I've seen listings on Wikipedia for people who have written as little as 1 book and Zenker's work far exceeds that. How about re-evaluating your thoughts?

Jrafinski (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)jrafinski

Not sure if this is the way to reach you re: Gary Zenker listing

I tried on another site as well.

I think the listing for Gary Zenker is justified. He has a lot of published work and in addition is a publisher. I've seen listings here for authors with a single book, so I'l like you to reconsider. I don;t think Wikipedia is just for million-seller authors. It's a great resource for information on a variety of types of authors.Give this another look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrafinski (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm SwisterTwister. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, NWA (group), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with the bots

You've used HotCat to move a whole bunch of Shakespearean actors and actresses to the categories British or American etc. Some of these may have been accidentally included. For example, Sarah Bernhardt was many things, but not British. Could you please verify all the changes you've made?Afasmit (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mergers: attribution

I noticed you did an undiscussed merge of Cassandra (Doctor Who) into List of Doctor Who villains. However you did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging which means you did not attribute the text you copied. See section Full-content paste merger point 3

Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting merged content from [[article name]] (This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)"

I hope that you will rectify your omission without delay. Tim! (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I fixed it. JDDJS (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Genghis khan the story of lifetime

the production never ended prematurely , plus to add that madison motion pictures group now owns the footage and from 2010 is working on expensive postproduction for give light to GK the story of a lifetime 2 hours feature film and a six hours tv series . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.1.204 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Family (2016 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller. 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) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Chile

When you tag a page, like you did at Antisemitism in Chile, please make sure the page is patrolled. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, I couldn't mark it as patrolled, but I did try to. JDDJS (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article on Henry Charles Innes Fripp. I think I've made all the suggested changes. Have a great day. MayCauseDrowsiness (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Contestion of Deletion - AustinFFA

Hello JDDJS, I am contacting you in regard of the Wikipedia page I recently created (AustinFFA). I feel this page should not be deleted. I feel this way because he is a notable opinion in a lot of people's minds, and he has been on google news before. He was on Google News after criticism on his "First Time Trying *So and so drug*" He may not be over one million subscribers but he has a very loyal fanbase. I feel most people do not know his backstory or what his channel started off like, such as who he is signed with and when his channel first started. This is why am contesting deletion of the Wikipedia page AustinFFA Sincerely, MLGRektMaster2k16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGRektMaster2k16 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

About user whose edits has caused pronlem

Hello, i have seen that you warned user Aliumar123 for creating inappropriate article and now he has started editing in other articles as well with false information. Can you blocked or find some reason for that. --Nauriya (Rendezvous) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf

Hi, I noticed your edit here, where you changed "Donald Trump" to "Donald Drumpf" everywhere. Compare this alert on the Administrators' noticeboard. I don't get the impression from your page that you're a vandal, so perhaps you were using Chrome with the Drumpfinator extension? Seems that's unsafe when editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

PS: the same thing happened in your edit to Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 — I just checked. Don't edit with that extension! Bishonen | talk 08:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the Drumpf extension causing the problem. I have to be careful when editing. Thank you for not jumping to conclusions, which I wouldn't have blamed you if you did. JDDJS (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I had just seen the AN alert, and also it's obvious from this page that you're a good editor. Consider using a different browser, maybe? Donald Trump is all over the place, especially these days. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

You just did this again here. Please be more careful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SilverPush

I just created SilverPush within the last few minutes. I've already made multiple edits, added a source, and had two more sources I was about to add. Why did you instantly nominate it for deletion? —danhash (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick question

How do you find out how many times a page has been viewed? Thanks.Thursby16 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry if I'm intruding. There are some links in Special:Statistics and Wikipedia:Pageview statistics. This link seems promising. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to structure of an article

Hi I think you recommended this article Dr. Philipp Aeby for reorganization to comply with layout guidelines. I have read the layout guidelines and looked at the structure of other similar pages, but can't understand what you think needs changing... Can you help me understand? Any advice very much appreciated, thanks! (Ibanlopez (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)).

Improvements to the article "The Hamilton College Spectator"

Other college newspapers (Bowdoin Orient, Havard Crimson, Yale Daily News, Williams Record) have wikipedia articles. Hamilton College is a "little Ivy" ... the newspaper is historically relevant. I'd appreciate if you could help on the structure, citations of the article. (Lichaelmevy —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Wait Bro i am Adding all Kind of Refrence :3 
Asim143 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

is this how I send you messages?

"I feel that the rules should be ignored" this is a quote from your Wikipedia page, why should the rules be followed on pages that i Make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustBoyer (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to article

Hello! Thanks for helping out with my article about the Dutch band Zorita Zorita (band). I've now added different references, other articles that link to it and categories. Are these enough adjustments, or should I add more references or other changes to the aticle to improve it? Thanks in advance! (User:DekkerR (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)).

Please stop changing "Trump" to "Drumpf"

You did this again here. I urge you to disable the extension. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

please do delete this page. I did not want to post this to wikipedia. paul scalenghe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul scalenghe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Azure Falls?

You recently nominated the Diamond Construct article for deletion: I agree. Both that article and Azure Falls were created by User:Philbotte. Both bands issue material on the Ghost Ink label and one of its managers is Philip Bottenberg (see here). I believe Azure Falls requires a CoI 'plate, if not, an AfD – what is your opinion?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Country Pop

Hello. I understand and apologize if you are frustrated or feel uncomfortable with my edits. However, I hope you understand that as much as I love Country music, and i REALLY do, the only reason I got into it seven years ago was because some artists were able to cross over into Pop (Country Pop). While that doesn't mean I don't appreciate straightforward Country artists, or even those who make Country music that is definitely NOT crossover Pop (Traditional, Honky Tonk), I personally am so frustrated by people attacking artists who can go from Country to Pop and back again, especially since it is that music, not hardcore Country, that inspires me as an aspiring singer/artist. That is why I decided to edit the pages of all of my favorite artists who inspired and that I consider Country Pop, no matter how much people want to deny it. Finally, without sounding cynical, I don't really see what the problem is, considering that all of these artists I always consider Country first and Pop second. JT Country Pop (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

jtcountrypop

Jtcountrypop is also the 108 ip user that I was reverting. It's too much for me to do individually on my phone. So, if you know how to mass undo, please do so. Draftwait (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Country Pop

Here is a list of the artists that i consider "Country Pop." I won't be ediitng pages regarding Taylor Swift and Shania Twain because that is way too easy. Also, I mainly wanted to do this because people usually recognize female artists who cross over, but ignore the crossover appeal of male artists.

Taylor Swift Little Big Town Luke Bryan Carrie Underwood The Band Perry Lady Antebellum Sam Hunt Thomas Rhett Sugar land Kenny Chesney Dan + Shay Cassadee Pope Rascal Flatts Tim McGraw Shania Twain Martina McBride Love and Theft David Nail The Band Perry Cassadee Pope Dan + Shay Kenny Chesney Cole Swindell Tim McGraw Keith Urban Jana Kramer Sara Evans Faith Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by JT Country Pop (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of New York Mets team records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Reyes. 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) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Liz Armstrong

Thank you for the notification, however I did not create the article - I merely created a redirect about a different person with the same name. As the redirect remains valid, perhaps you and @Peridon: would consider restoring the redirect? GiantSnowman 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect. If there are any objections, RfD would be the best place. The last article superimposed on the redirect should not be restored due to copyvio problems. Peridon (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Help

Peter Davidson (footballer) is the only person to have an article under the name Peter Davidson. Therefore, I feel the disambiguation page Peter Davidson should be deleted and Peter Davidson (footballer) moved there, with a DAB linking people to Pete Davidson and Peter Davison. However, I don't know whether this conversation should be under at an AFD for Peter Davidson or a request for move at Peter Davidson (footballer). JDDJS (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAME and WP:NCSP govern the naming convention here. I think the reason why (footballer) was added at the end is because there were other Peter Davidsons that had their articles deleted since. So in my opinion you're clear to request a move. Just go to the article, and click "Move". See WP:MOVE. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 07:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Samantha Bee article

Please contribute to the following discussion Talk:Samantha Bee#Canadian American, or the addition of Bee being a Canadian-American will be removed as a BLP violation. Sport and politics (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello JDDJS.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JDDJS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello JDDJS,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 811 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Your recent change to Cabinet of Donald Trump

As an editor with pending changes reviewer rights, I rejected your change with this comment in the review: "please be more selective. Marine Corps Times, Politico are 'serious'." You are welcome to try again with more narrow focus. - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: it looks like there was an edit conflict and somebody else ended up in the edit history. But their reasoning was substantially the same. - Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Reference errors on 7 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello JDDJS,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MordeKyle. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rami Hashish, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Help

How do you link to a user's contributions? I want to include a link the contributions of my alternate account User:I am JDDJS to my user page. JDDJS (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/I am JDDJS - is that what you are looking for? Nördic Nightfury 07:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert on The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series)

Sorry I accidentally reverted your edits on The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series). I was going through a bunch of pages that 201.143.36.121 had vandalized and accidentally goofed up on that page. Sorry!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello JDDJS,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Toni Erdmann - languages

Regarding these two edits [2] [3], are you perhaps confused? The film has quite a lot of English in it, and relatively little Romanian. As you may recall, none of the German characters speaks Romanian; the German characters and the Romanian characters often speak English to each other. Mathew5000 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello JDDJS,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Bennett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shorts (film). 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) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: White savior narrative in film

Hi, I reverted your removal of cited content at White savior narrative in film because simply classifying it as "seeming like fringe theory" did not come across as a valid reason. Please start a discussion at the talk page to achieve consensus. Cheers, RA0808 talkcontribs 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I did start a conversation on the talk page about it, where I further explained how I feel it violates WP:FRINGE, hours before I edited the page, and I mentioned that I bought it up om the talk page in my edit summary. JDDJS (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I read through your rationale... it doesn't change the fact that there has been no consensus. You were bold, you were reverted, so now is the time to discuss before making the changes again. It might even be worth it to bring it up as an RFC if necessary. RA0808 talkcontribs 19:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If this is something you have such a strong opinion on, why didn't you state your opinion on the talk page after reverting my edit? JDDJS (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on it. I reverted because the deletion rationale did not seem sufficient to remove cited content. If you want to create more robust criteria for inclusion in the list (or perhaps remove the list altogether) that's best discussed with editors who have done work focused on that page... since they would certainly know it better than I do. RA0808 talkcontribs 19:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
So basically, you just undid my edit on the principle of the matter. That's a really annoying way to edit, and it greatly slows down the editing process. It's not a heavy traffic page, so who knows if and when any editors would actually participate in the discussion to form a consensus. However, nobody had voiced any disagreement yet, so there was no reason for me not to make the edit. If somebody undid my edit because they disagreed with my edit and then after undoing they stated their opinion on the talk page, then I wait until a consensus was formed before doing editing it again. JDDJS (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 2017 Eunos Crescent FC season

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2017 Eunos Crescent FC season, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, JDDJS. You have new messages at Talk:Ben 10 (2017 TV series).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—usernamekiran[talk] 17:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello JDDJS,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 811 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Suicide Squad (film)

The actual version of the page represents the consensus of the community established over the course of the article's composition. I just restored what you changed on May 23 without any kind of discussion and above all doing an original research. Citing "overwhelmingly negative reviews" is far too much hyperbolic; Metacritic itself indicates "mixed or average reviews". If you are considering this discussion, it does not indicate any consensus, and as I wrote five months ago, another user had already fixed the issue at that time. The reception about Leto's performances is supported by sources and indicated by previous discussions. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus before changing again.--Earthh (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Too many genres?

How many is too many? Shouldn't all genres a TV Show fall into be listed? Just curious.ckliffames1 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Ckliffames1

Some personal advice

On a purely personal note, I do suggest that you try to work with people, instead of reverting them. It will lead to a much more pleasant editing experience. Wikipedia is designed as a collaborative project. Continue edits instead of reverting. Reverting is uncollaborative, and frankly, it pisses people off. Only revert if it is obvious vandalism. Cheers, LK (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Lawrencekhoo The pot is calling the kettle black. You reverted me as well. Also the status quo of the article was to include actor in the lead. And your claim that Lin isn't referred to as an actor in sources was ridiculous. I had no problem finding sources to prove it. However there aren't nearly as many sources calling him a playwright, which you did not remove. That makes me think that you didn't even check what the sources call him. Furthermore, I was the one who posted on WP: MUSICAL to get outside editors to contribute to the discussion. I'm not pretending to have the best attitude when it comes to interacting with other editors, but at least I admit that, and I don't pretend that entire dispute is entirely the other editor's fault, like you're trying to do. JDDJS (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to argue policy, it's just advice in how to have a better experience. But note from the page you quoted, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain (except in biographies of living people, where contentious material should be removed)." LK (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@LK By contentious material, they mean possibly controversial information, which does not apply to calling an actor an actor in the lead. Besides, that was one point of several that I made. Here's some personal advice for you: don't be giving out advice to other editors that you don't follow yourself. It makes you come off as pretentious, hypocritical and extremely annoying. JDDJS (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr .Heinz Doofenschmirtz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dr .Heinz Doofenschmirtz. Since you had some involvement with the Dr .Heinz Doofenschmirtz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello JDDJS, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDDJS/Archive_3&oldid=1141805945"