User talk:Jdavi333/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jdavi333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Superbowl 50 & Bruno Mar

What is your source that Bruno Mars is performing at Super Bowl 50? Considering he performed last year, a return performance would be seriously unusual... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, he preformed 2 years ago. second of all, ESPN reported it in the source given. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I've found this from Entertainment Weekly. But the Coldplay announcement in SI two months later only says that Mars' participation is "rumored", and this one from ESPN again ~~says "rumored"~~ doesn't quite confirm. So I don't think it's confirmed enough to add to the Super Bowl 50 article yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

reverting edits

If you want to revert an edit, please use your edit summary. Otherwise, I will revert it as unexplained. I gave a reason, so I don't see why you shouldn't. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just chill. I thought you had made a mistake to make it all black without any orange. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

sorry, but the one thing that annoys me the most is no reason for reverting my edits. So yes, it pisses me off. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

LA Coliseum article

You should re-read the NFL.com article. Nowhere in the article does it state the LA Coliseum will officially be the temporary home of the Rams, only that USC wishes for it to happen. Richiekim (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Pro Bowl

Hi Jdavi333, Why did you remove all the references for replacement players? Can you add them back in after you're doing updating the drafted players? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I just didn't see a reason why EVERY player needed a reference that he was selected to the Pro Bowl. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Minneapolis LII.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Minneapolis LII.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information. To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Houston LI.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Houston LI.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information. To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016

That maybe but other sources with later timestamps say otherwise including CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and ABC News. It seems CBS is speculating even though it is extremely likely. Wait until he makes his announcement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Super Bowl 50. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Blindspot (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The Enstarz article uses Reddit as a basis. Reddit is not a reliable source. You have been told before. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball stadiums

I made several different changes, all of which you have indiscriminately reverted.

Removing unnecessary state qualifiers from certain well-known cities, in line with Manual of Style guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States)
Removing links to well-known locations, such as New York City, Los Angeles. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked).
Fixing (simplifying) links to venues:

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

2. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to Colonies Chris- Not sure what you're trying to quote to me from the Naming conventions page, because it's pretty clear from there that the correct style IS "City, State". Jdavi333 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]]". That covers many major cities such as Denver, Los Angeles, Boston, Houston, etc. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess from that you're right, that just doesn't seem to have been applied to these articles. Perhaps because some cities will require comma convention, the original authors felt that it would be best to use the same convention for all cities in the article. perhaps comment on the talk pages there to see what the community thinks. Thanks for clarifying this fir me. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of these articles predate the guideline about AP usage (though it's been in place for a long time), so the old universal 'City, State' pattern was there at the start and just keeps carrying on. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

List of National Basketball Association arenas

I thought from the discussion above that it was clear that the universal 'City, State' format was a hangover from earlier days, and that the current consensus guideline is that certain cities (those listed by AP) should be known only by 'City'. My changes are bringing the article into line with that guideline. There is no question of voting on whether all cities should omit the state - that's not in question and never has been. And your reversion has removed many other useful changes I made at the same time. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to raise the possibility that the articles would be better aesthetically and the charts would be of better reference if the entire column was of the same format. You might want to raise the issue on the articles' talk pages (which is anyways the more appropriate place for these discussions, not on my talk page), before making such a drastic change that, of the hundreds of editors and administrators who have viewed the page, no one else thought necessary. Just my two cents. Jdavi333 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 National League Division Series

I've noticed at least three edits of yours where you change the order of the final score with an edit summary of "common sense that winner goes before loser". This is in fact incorrect, as the visiting team is always listed first and the home team is second, regardless of the final score in pretty much any sporting event. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

see this link [1] that the home team is first. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop changing this if you get reverted again. It's beginning to look like you're edit warring. Next time, don't change it back, but start a discussion on the talk page(s) to reach a consensus. If you continue down this path, you might get blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jdavi333. You have new messages at Jauerback's talk page.
Message added 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaker & President pro temp.

Party leaderships don't require the House & Senate to vote. However, Speaker & President pro-temp are federal positions that do need that vote. Both positions don't get voted on 'til January 2017. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Baltimore Ravens season

If you have a problem with the formatting I started to implement at 2016 Baltimore Ravens season, I suggest you bring it up at WT:NFL, since that is the formatting used on all the NFL playoffs articles and most team season articles too. Just because the Ravens articles have been doing it wrong for years doesn't mean you should revert my changes. – Pee Jay 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I simply have been following what was established in previous Ravens' articles. I simply enter the game stats exactly as they are given on the official NFL.com gamebook. Please don't change entire articles to a different format without asking anyone. I am simply staying with the status quo. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be the status quo for Ravens articles, but the Ravens articles are completely different to the majority of other NFL teams. Please, if you have a problem with the accepted format (see 2015–16 NFL playoffs), make a comment at WT:NFL. – Pee Jay 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pee Jay just because some articles are one way, it doesn't mean that everything must be YOUR way. start a discussion regarding the format for team season articles, and AFTER other users have commented and a consensus has been reached articles can be changed. Looking around, i have seen different formats for the game summaries, so YOUR way is not necessarily RIGHT. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not "my" way, this is the way that has been used on all of the NFL playoffs articles and a good proportion of team season articles. If you think that way is wrong or deficient in some way, explain why. Until then, I'm going to continue to ensure that all NFL team season articles conform to the same standard. – Pee Jay 17:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pee Jay, I simply copy the scoring summaries from the official NFL.com gamebook. If you think that is "childish", take it up with them. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What I think is childish is not addressing my points. What exactly do you think is better about the "official" gamebook? Why do you think that way is better than what multiple people have implemented across literally hundreds of articles? – Pee Jay 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm yet to see a reply from you at WT:NFL. If you have a problem with what I'm doing, raise it there instead of standing in the way of a perfectly reasonable effort to standardise our content. – Pee Jay 17:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I joined this discussion on WT:NFL after edits to the 2016 Jacksonville Jaguars season article. DragonFury (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you like to do things a certain way, but please re-examine your actions. Take a look at the way the article was before I made my change, and tell me honestly that it doesn't look ridiculous to have a hidden section that says "Game information" only for there to be no information in there. Tell me honestly that you wouldn't be mystified by the absence of data under those headers if you were a new user clicking around for more details. – Pee Jay 19:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your need to change everything from the way it was, when many years of editors have not had a problem with it. The stat headers are added to every NFL team season page at the beginning of the season. It is simply easier that way to just add the names and stats after the game. Additionally, you should not feel the need to delete the headers immediately after the game, I have a life (believe it or not) and am not always available to edit the game page the second the game is over. To address your concern of not looking nice, for this reason the tables for future games are hidden until the week before. If you would like to overhaul the entire system of team season pages that has been in place for many years, take it up somewhere else rather that just going about changing hundreds of pages on your own. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of what I was getting at. Normally, empty parameters in the box score template simply cause that parameter not to be expressed when the page is rendered; however, when you add the headers to the score and stats parameters, it causes those to appear on the page, albeit in a hidden box. If someone clicks on the button to reveal the hidden box, they're going to be confronted with a set of headers with no information below them, which is confusing and unprofessional looking. Believe it or not, I also have a life, we just live in different time zones. I also have a lot of other interests when it comes to editing Wikipedia, it just so happens that you're standing in the way of my new pet project. You may or may not have noticed that 30 of the 32 NFL teams follow the same formatting now; the fact that you're standing in the way of the Ravens joining that group is bananas to me, but I am - and have always been - open to suggestions from you and User:DragonFury about how we can improve the way information is displayed on NFL team season articles; unfortunately, neither of you have actually suggested any improvements, you're just digging your heels in about sticking with your own personal formats. That is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about, and I would appreciate it if I didn't have to ask admins to get involved to stop you from hindering the improvement of the encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 20:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 16)

Could you stop reverting the edits to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 16). That user has been listing the upcoming two episodes in its own words. So what if they are spoilers cause both of them were highlighted in the first look prior to the season premiere. I suggest you watch the video first before you think about continuing your disruptive reverts.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnCN91lWAZg S hannon434 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I DID watch the video. there is nothing in it about when teams will change, who the celebrity guests are or anything else of the sort. As per WP:CRYSTAL, future events are not predicted in Wikipedia. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a team change in episode 10 according to the futon press cause none of the summaries are predictions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by S hannon434 (talk • contribs)

WP:CRYSTAL does not only refer to predictions and spoilers. Read the article then you'll see the guidelines. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please let the user restore the summaries for the upcoming eps. Like he or she said, some of the clips were part of the first look in addition to the introduction from ep 1 which includes the giant spoon splattering the chef. Its not like big deal. Just let it go alright.S hannon434 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm not going to get involved in your content disputes above, but this, this, and this are not the proper use of WP:ROLLBACK. As a reminder rollback is for problematic edits, like vandalism; it is not meant for good faith edits. Continued misuse will result in you losing the right to use it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon episodes (2016), contributed colours that may cause accessibility problems for users with certain types of visual disabilities. We aim to use colours that meet the WCAG AAA standard for accessibility. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines on this subject, which can be found at WP:COLOR; this page provides further information about contributing AAA-compliant colours to this encyclopedia. For information specific to templates used in articles about television, please also see Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian, thanx. I didn't ralize that the red I chose was an issue. I was going for Coca-Cola red (Tis the season). Jdavi333 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No problems. Unfortunately, red isn't compliant with both white or black text. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)