User talk:Koavf/Archive018

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Koavf. 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.

User talk:Koavf archives

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

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will probably respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.

Well, first of all thanks for notifying me. Second, let me make sure I understood you correctly. You do not like that I made the template to categorized a particular industry for the country. I thought that can be as a quick short cut for people who are interested in the industry of that country. Of course, one can use the category tab to navigate across the selections, but the template was created for convenience, primarily. I agree that it is not being followed to finish the project. I thought that some one familiar with subject will help me out with that project. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Koavf. I've noticed on several templates for film directors that you've replaced the state of collapsed with autocollapse. This might be a stupid question - but what's the difference between the two?! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've noticed that 2 or more templates autocollapse anyway. Or maybe it's because I'm viewing this with Firefox and not IE. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your move of 's Up to 'S Up for the time being - you can't go ahead and move that page while we're still discussing a related move elsewhere. The two pages should clearly match each other, nobody's arguing that, so let's wait for the move discussion to complete. Thanks Interplanet Janet (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you are not touching stuff like the Super Bowl articles, why don't you go around changing the default sort on those? Or the Arena Bowl articles, or every other similar one? TJ Spyke 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going too because I think the current sorting is better. I just wanted to point out that you weren't going after these much bigger targets. TJ Spyke 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As Dekkappai has pointed out to me on my talk page, here and here you've announced on templates that they're nominated for deletion and in their warning templates unambiguously linked to TfD debate pagelets that . .  unfortunately aren't there. Are they located elsewhere, or did you perhaps forget to make them?

Please be considerate to the hardworking Dekkappai -- who worriedly writes "Oh dear, does this mean I'll have to write an article on the sequel to Horse and Woman and Dog?" -- by explaining the matter not here, not on my talk page, but rather on his. Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Koavf. I'm curious why you aren't withdrawing the deletion nominations for the Japanese directors. Your concern, as far as I can tell, was that there were only 2-3 films on the templates. Most have 4 now, some 5, one (I think) 6... and growing... Isn't the concern invalid now? Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can withdraw for you-- I wouldn't do it if I could. Anyway, I don't mind starting the film articles. I had them in mind from when the templates were made, but got distracted to other projects... I'll just forge ahead for now, and you can look into them when you can. Pretty sure they'll close as "Keep" either way, if they've got 5 or more anyway. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of the 3 new move requests with the brackets in: 2 had just been discussed, and the other was leading to "oppose". "(Do the) Mashed Potatoes" means "'Do the Mashed Potatoes' or 'Mashed Potatoes'", and neither form needs "The"; similarly the other 2 move requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Maoist ICMLPO publishes a magasine called "International newsletter". I think removing the word "International" from the article's title was wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Is the newsletter itself called "International Newsletter"? If so, the name of the article should probably be "International Newsletter (nternational Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations)". I'm a bit confused. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The conference is called International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations and they publish a newsletter called "International Newsletter". The article is about the conference.

Btw, there is another International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations, consisted of completelly different parties. They publish a magasine called "Unity and Struggle". -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay You clearly know more about this matter than I do, so I will leave it up to your better judgement. Sorry if I caused any headaches. Note that the main article is at "Marxism–Leninism" (with an ndash) not at "Marxism-Leninism" (with a hyphen), so this article's title should reflect that convention per WP:DASH. Consequently, you shouldn't have any problems moving it. Again, thanks for your time and sorry that I made you post here in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'd be happy to work with you on improving the article. Thanks for the feedback, Justin. - LiveWire Legend^talk23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether the category name is changed or not. I actually just realized not too long that the term "EP"'s should not be used when referring to them, but instead "extended plays" like you mentioned. Thanks for asking me though =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Though there doesn't seem to be any written rule that category names should match their corresponding article titles, that does seem to be the consensus of many CfD regulars; and I don't have a problem with it. However care should be taken when treating list categories as corresponding to topic articles. To take an example that you haven't come to yet, Category:DIWA-listed wetlands is for categories listed in A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. When reliable sources talk about the directory, they refer to it by its full name, A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. But when reliable sources discuss wetlands that are listed in the Directory, they invariably follow the established convention of calling them Directory wetlands, DIWA wetlands, or DIWA-listed wetlands. In accordance with the fundamental naming rule that we follow usage in reliable sources, the topic title should be the full name A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, but a corresponding list ought to be at something like List of DIWA wetlands. And the category, being a list category, actually corresponds to the latter not the former. Therefore I would argue that both A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia and Category:DIWA-listed wetlands are properly titled, despite their failure to correspond.

This situation is not all that uncommon. I think the same applied to Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia / Category:IBRA regions; Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia / Category:IMCRA regions; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers / Category:IEEE standards; etc.

Hesperian 04:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the major issues with the categories is how they clutter articles extrapolating out from initials is only going to add to the clutter, I can see obvious reason for doing this where there is ambiguarity. I've also had personal correspondence questioning whether the large scale of nominations has another purpose my answer was to WP:AGF. Gnangarra 06:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Another purpose? Do you have one in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At least a few trout slaps and a sharp and violent metaphorical kick in a few places - in view of your acknowledged boredom with life [1] has created some very stupid conversations - (some would see that as a conspiracy) ... In one computer based firm that I once worked with - lunches with alcohol and or boredom and the supervisor would send employees home with pay rather than let them go anywhere near a keyboard

But nevertheless you have some supporters - but I would doubt the wisdom of the guideline in the face of some of the 'expansions' you have promoted SatuSuro 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

btw a very happy birthday if you user page is correct!

- I dont support the conspiracy idea if you read my message i picked up on your bored comment to occuli - which is very telling - and I honestly consider some of your proposals close to stupid - but hey at least it sorts out what I also consider a stupid guideline - at least it has alerted who are also 'expand the acronym pedants' - there is a very clear case for case my case consideration against blanket usage of a guideline SatuSuro 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you running some sort of bot to auto-list templates for deletion or something? Because your rationale doesn't make sense, and is identical for a tonne of templates. If not, I think your latest batch is suffering from a lack of examination. If you are running a bot, I suggest you examine the templates first, and fit the rationale to the template.

I know that you're a good user, since I've seen your work, so don't take this criticism the wrong way.

Take care.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I keep seeing you saying that templates are "broken", but when I examine them, they work fine. That's why I was wondering if you were automating the nominations. The first one that set me thinking was the nomination of the preload template for the article creation wizard. Since it's a substitution template, it would be unused, and as an article creation preload, it would look broken, because it's not designed to be used, it's a framework to be editted to a form that could be used. This lead me to examine the other nominations that you called broken, for the last few days, and alot of them appear to not be broken at all. I examined the template coding, template talk pages (since older templates place their documentation there), and any transclusions. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I unlist my template for deletion? This table uses this template quite heavily. Jrkenti (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I ensure that the page is not deleted? Quickly or Slowly? Jrkenti (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done it, see your help posting also my sandbox. You need to use different fields though, see documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the link of that sandbox to an old version because I'm clearing it out; User:DASHBot doesn't like the non free files in there. Curious thing: although the same image appears twice in that sandbox, DASHBot has only delinked one. I think I know why, and suspect a bug in the 'bot. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I saw this discussion. Just so you know, {{saved book}} now has a |sort_as= parameter. So you can use that to overide automatic sorting. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for being thorough.Ulmanor (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Koavf, are you really sure that dashes instead of hyphens are correct for German federal-states, e.g. here and there? At least in German language hyphens are regularly used, cf. #7 ("Zusammensetzungen gleichberechtigter Eigennamen" = conjunction of equal proper nouns) … --:bdk: 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re [2]:

Well, I read WP:MOS, hyphen and also hyphenated names ;-) I can't see any formal difference between surnames and these state names which all have a sort of "marriage" in their history, e.g. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was formed through the merger of Mecklenburg and Vorpommern. And the spaced dash in "North Rhine – Westphalia" looks even more strange *g*. Anyway, I'll post a question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as you recommended. --:bdk: 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of also sounding preachy, it often really benefits to deeper look at the situation at hand (or maybe even ask preliminary questions) before preaching obvious to others. But anyway, I'll make it a priority to work on/around those two templates (and likely switch my vote to "delete" at the TfD for both of them) early next week. One thing is for sure—{{Infobox settlement}} would be a horrible, horrible substitution in this case (unless, of course, all you care about is having an infobox of any sort in the article, which I hope isn't what's going on here). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 27, 2010; 16:43 (UTC)

I notice you moved the article for the University of South Carolina football stadium to Williams–Brice Stadium, citing the MOS. I think the article should be moved back to its original title of "Williams-Brice Stadium", with a hyphen.

The stadium name is NOT a combination of the names of two separate people named Williams and Brice. It's named after one person, specifically Martha Williams-Brice, who funded the stadium's first major expansion. (See the "History" section). Typically, double-barreled surnames are divided by hyphens, not dashes. — Dale Arnett (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you realize that "BGN/PCGN romanization" is actually what the system is called (with a slash); see, for example, the pdf file used as a source. I don't believe our own guidelines can overwrite actual usage. Please, take another look at this. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 2, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely! I will do that as soon as I finish formatting his albums. Won't take me too much longer. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

MTV Channels in the UK are channels FROM the UK that also broadcast in Ireland. MTV (Ireland and the United Kingdom) suggests that it is an Irish channel and in fact it is not. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your note, but I think that you will have to clarify here. MTV (Ireland and the United Kingdom) and MTV (UK and Ireland) mean the same thing. But if this is a British channel that is merely broadcast in Ireland, then it should simply be MTV (United Kingdom); there is no need to mention every other place it is broadcast in the disambiguation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(I added your comment so you can follow the convo) A TV program that is made on MTV in the UK will have "An MTV UK & Ireland production" at the very end of it. Even though MTV is a UK channel it will also include Ireland with their programming. The only difference between MTV Ireland and MTV UK is local adverts. E.g. MTV News has both British and Irish presenters. MTV treats UK and Ireland as a whole, but it is STILL a UK channel that incorporates Ireland. Also the Oxegen festival which is an Irish festival was broadcasted on MTV.

Simply put, MTV has both British and Irish content with their HQ in London, UK. So MTV UK and Ireland makes more sense. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you made 73 nominations for merging/renaming/deleting on February 23. Please note that making too many nominations on one day can overload the CfD process; most days don't have more than 20 discussions. Please don't make too many nominations on a single day - in CfD, I would place it at a maximum of 5-10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please leave the Coxeter-Dynkin diagram symbols alone. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am very unsure of that tag. If you click the "What links here" you get this listing (940 linked to. Can you explain the tag?--Morenooso (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We can keep the discussion on your talkpage. I have it under my Watched pages.

There should be more than two incoming links. The 314ARS, 10thAF, 4AF, AFRC and other pages should have links to it. Unfortunately, with its name change, I don't know if all the links have been updated.--Morenooso (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Links As you can see above, only Tenth Air Force and RQ-4 Global Hawk link to 940th Wing. Most of the redirect links come through 940th Air Refueling Wing via {{USAF Air Force Reserve Command}}. If you fix it there, it will no longer be an orphan. This is common when a page is moved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not high priority on my list. I keep it on Watch to prevent vandalism. Beale AFB should link there as well. Since you have doing work on other military articles, you seem more apt to do the relinks - especially since you put the tag on it. I forgot the WikiProject that follows military articles. You might want to put it on their task list.--Morenooso (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Priorities It's a much lower priority for me, I'm sure. I'm just replacing raster graphics with SVGs; I have no knowledge or interest in military topics. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I simply have neither the time nor the interest to follow up on all the orphan tags that AWB leaves. In the meantime, there are plenty of redirect links, so it's very easy to find this topic. Frankly put, I don't care. That having been said, I do appreciate your input and I hope you don't find me flippant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do. Cavalier is a better term.

Your preceeding paragraph sounds like it was not made in good faith. To slap tags on visiting articles is beautiful. Sorry but my night is at hand and I won't be available tomorrow.--Morenooso (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand you; it seems like the first sentence of your last paragraph disapproves, but the second sentence endorses me. Anyway, I hope you didn't take offense and I appreciate your input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you think I approve of the tag for the 940th article. I may approve of you doing work on articles but if you don't catch the drift then you are sadly mistaken.--Morenooso (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Beauty "To slap tags on visiting articles is beautiful" that seems like it's a thumbs-up to me putting {{Orphan}} on the page (and WP:ORPHAN agrees.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for getting in touch with me about the file. I added the tag to this file while I was in the process of compiling a volume on Meteorology, through PediaPress. This particular file was not rendering within the software correctly so I intended to (temporarily) exclude it from print. The book I was working on is now complete, so if you wish, feel free to remove the template from this image. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have created. Best wishes- GLaDOS (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Alternated cubic tiling.png, and related images by me, are ray-tracings with considerable deep detail. Replacing them with SVG would be difficult. —Tamfang (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 09:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering, as no one else has voted to delete yet, if you wouldn't mind withdrawing the nomination and instead participating in the discussion at Template talk:Quote box2#State of the sandbox. It would probably be simpler to keep the discussion in one place, and you could always renominate for deletion if the discussion doesn't go anywhere. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't use AWB. I have a Mac. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I used the unlink tool but forgot to put the reason why in it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen it on most articles. How does it help?—indopug (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you reply to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_2#Category:Deprecated_citation_templates, please drop me a notice on my talk page. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, but What should I do ?? MaenK.A._Talk 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto here, I've done a quick search and I can't find it. Happy to change or have someone change my userpage if there's a template that needs to go or if there's a better template, but I'm assuming it must be something like this being transcluded into one of the gizmos I use in my userspace. ϢereSpielChequers 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand, does this mean that my user-page will be affected by the deletion of this template?? and if so, I guess other user-pages would be affected, then why to delete the template??!! MaenK.A._Talk 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is all that needed to be done. Koavf, I have a question at the TFD page. –xeno^talk 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice MaenK.A._Talk 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note: I have no idea where it is on my user and talk pages. All I need to know is how to change it when/if this one is deleted. I get someone else to organise the stuff on those pages. Tony (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the reason for deletion again? Is the template being deleted or just moved? Do I have any alternatives? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite grammar rules, near as I can tell the "B" was capitalized in the title. [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual titles trump manual of style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing caps and such as that, because it doesn't fit our MOS, is essentially "original research" on our part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's place to tell the rest of world how to think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that changing it is of no value to wikipedia. I'm guessing they capitalized all four words because they thought it looked funny with 3 capped and 1 not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am less concerned with pedantic rules than I am with not making wikipedia look like it's sloppily researched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I also note that the MOS contradicts itself concerning trademarks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I mis-read it. In any case, it's obvious you're not going to budge, so there's nothing else to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the category for you. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin, I need some real tutoring. I really want to add to the Rory Gallagher article here, but know next to nothing about discographies (and computers, actually). Someone made a discography page as a separate entity here, but I'm confused as to how to go about putting together the bands that Gallagher formed before he went solo, (even some of his dozen or so solo albums don't have album pages, much less his songs)-- and his compilations with people like Muddy Waters, Jack Bruce, Buddy Guy, etc. would really be an asset to both the Gallagher article and also to the discographies of the other notable musicians he's worked with. Unfortunately, I can't find anybody to TEACH me how it's done, which is a shame since I could do a lot for many articles if I knew.. you know the old saying, something like, ".. but teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime", or something like that. Would you answer on my talk page? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Actually, it's smarter-- if you're willing-- take a look at the article, and assess what should come first. Normally, I'm a wikignome, finishing up people's stuff, or adding to it, not the other way around. I edit about 12 articles now and then, and find photos for musicians' biographies via Creative Commons, about 350 photos. There's an incomplete list on my Userpage. Are you familiar with Rory's music? His performances were so intense they were frightening! When I found the article hadn't been touched much since 2005, I added his early biography, and 3 photos. There is a lot left needed all over the thing, though. I'm asking if you know his music, since his agoraphobia prevented him from touring the USA very much. As I did for the Derek Trucks, Cat Stevens and many other articles, I want to place photos and music clips probably later.

1. Re: the discography, I put a link to that separate page intended for it on the main article, but it only has the albums he recorded as a solo artist on it, so the whole thing is still left on the article itself as well. I placed possible sources for album pages there, also. (I really haven't a clue how to put an album page together or find ratings but bumped into them.) Problem: how to handle compilations of old and new material that was released posthumously? (I have the same problem on the Cat Stevens article too, which just lost it's GA status. I have the email and phone number of Rory's brother Dónal, his business manager, but am unsure if I contact him for clarification on some things, is it original research?
2. Possibility of multi-tasking? Maybe YOU know editors who might help in different capacities. Like, one person willing to teach me how to do just one album page, and one willing to give comments on the discography thing, and another with reference sources, and another, editing... unless you have some time. I can learn, only know maybe 3 editors here, and have no computer education. Let me know what you think about that.
3. How to find sources for someone who died in 1995 who was virtually ignored by American press? Example: Rory Gallagher was considered early on as Eric Clapton's peer as a musician. He was a serious multi-instrumentalist, but his Fender Stratocaster brought accolades, and in the genre of Blues rock, both on acoustic & electric guitar, was lauded by old periodicals like Melody Maker and Guitar Player magazine, actually being ranked by readers above Clapton, but was passed by when it came to Rolling Stone, probably because his fear of flying after the death of Stevie Ray Vaughn. It curtailed most of his trips from Europe to North America and Japan.

Anyway, this is what I'm thinking right now. Please glance over it, and tell me what you think. Maybe from now on, email is best for my concerns with this since I'm using too much talk page space. Mine is listed too. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. I posed a question for you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for lifting ban on the assumption that you would be watching that discussion, but I thought I would post a note about it here in case you aren't. See this diff if it isn't obvious which question I mean. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. Since your disagreement with Tom Ruen we have been discussing the SVG vs. PNG issue here, and a clear consensus has emerged to keep the png format at least for now. As and when the svg rendering issues can be overcome, svg remains an option for the future. My initial thoughts were for svg, but the technical investigations (some by me) and follow-up arguments have now convinced me otherwise. Ah, well. I hope that, like me, you can bring yourself to live with the result. Many thanks for trying the svg route so determinedly, anyway. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Garthlimited1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you make a big issue of not editing other editors comments and you just went onto my page and did something, why? Jayy008 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:NHL Premiere09 Logos.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Article was deleted per this discussion, and it appears you recreated just the talk page. I have tagged the orphaned talk page for re-deletion. You may safely answer me here, as I will have the page on watch, or you are of course welcome to use my talk page. Thanks.- Sinneed 19:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Db is entirely in order. It got deleted shortly before it came up in the queue I had in AWB. Thanks for the notice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw it was an AWB and thought that was likely... but just in case it needed your attention, wanted to let you know. All the best. :) - Sinneed 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oh-OK - Furthermore What.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Oh-OK - Wow Mini Album.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• This move request appeared in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Wikipedia:Requested moves:-

  • The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever! → The Best Christmas Album In The World...Ever! (move) — caps —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • But The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever! has only one edit, which is a redirect to The Best... Album in the World...Ever!. The Best... Album in the World...Ever! and The Best Christmas Album In The World...Ever! have parallel history and are very different lengths and do not look like versions of the same article. Please what needs to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin

at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 14#Category:Irish_scholars_and_academics, I have suggested that if you withdraw the nom, I will do the fix pronto.

That's just a suggestion. No pressure, and if you want to let the CFD run, that's fine.

But if you're OK with the solution, it might be a good idea to do it now.

(BTW, I have your talk page watchlisted, so pls post any reply here rather than on my talk, to keep discussion in one place. Thanks) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you missed this template move? Furthermore, I am not convinced that WP:NOTBROKEN applies to template redirects. A little further down that page it reads "Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated." But don't worry, I am not going to do them all – there are far too many. It was merely a small morning exercise with AWB. – IbLeo^(talk) 07:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As you replace {{ST episode}} with {{Infobox television episode}} (and well done for doing that), please can you also apply {{Start date}} as per the TV episode Infobox's documentation? Cheers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no I'd be happy to, but I'm not a whiz when it comes to the find and replace expressions (if this was MSOffice, it would be a different story...) If you can show me a straightforward way to do it with AWB, then I'd be happy to assist. Otherwise, these will just go into the large pool of {{Infobox television episode}} articles with plain text dates. Please respond on my talk if you have more to say. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm not familiar with AWB, otherwise I'd do it myself. No worries. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In this edit did you mean to change the date variables from "date" to "Airdate" in the {{unreferenced}}, {{notability}}, and {{plot}} templates? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When you made this edit you made the resulting infobox lose a "List of episodes" link. You may want to consider adding that functionality back in to all the changes you made.--Rockfang (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether or not the template should be depreciated. I'm pointing out a flaw in your edit. The template you are switching to has a field "Episode list". If actually used, it provides a link to List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes for example. The old template had a link like this, but for some reason you are not using it in the new infobox. Why?--Rockfang (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that in the future if you are going depreciate a template, that you do it fully. Meaning that all functionality that was in the old template is being used in the new one if possible.--Rockfang (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, when you come across an album whose artist doesn't have an article and which doesn't make a credible claim of notability otherwise, you don't actually have to take it to AFD for a full week — instead, you can just go right ahead and speedy delete it under criterion A9. I'm not sure if you're an administrator or not, but if you aren't you can still tag it with one of {{db-a9}}, {{db-album}} or {{db-song}}. And then you can tag the category as empty with {{db-c1}}. Hope that helps a bit...should save you a bit of work, at least. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Category:British blues groups, but not one for Irish blues groups. I don't feel too confident in starting a list like that, but after speaking to you about the few I know of that were Irish blues bands: Rory Gallagher, Thin Lizzy, Van Morrison, could you help to start a Category for these Irish performers? I also noticed that Gallagher's bassist from Belfast, Ireland, Gerry McAvoy, and his harmonica player, Mark Feltham are in a band called Nine Below Zero, and I believe do not belong in the "British" category, but am unsure of the qualifications. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we're currently in disagreement over which artists are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the Associated Acts section of Them Crooked Vultures. I've noticed I've possibly broken the Three-revert Rule, in which case speedy resolution of the issue can be reached by my being reported here. Seeing it's essentially your edits I continue to revert, if you continue to find my logic faulty I wouldn't hold it against you to report me.  Red157  20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did think the article looked somewhat bare and this is a good enough reason for me to expand it. Will do that soon.  Red157  22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, In order to be a useful (and acceptable) list, List of New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally needs to indicate which charts the acts have appeared on, together with date and song/album. A table format would probably work best, with sortable columns. Like all lists, each entry should be referenced. dramatic (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - one of my first thoughts on seeing the list is "This ought to be a category not a list". I also see that unlike most list creators, you won't have the references to hand. dramatic (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why delete? I don't understand this. The article about demo album of Laura Pausini. It is very interesting! James Michael 1 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK

But, in fact, it is stupid rules of Wikipedia.

I am a user of Wikipedia for a long time. But I have every day more and more disappointed in the rules. Now I don't want to add new articles in Wikipedia as before...

Best Regards, Justin.

James Michael 1 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help me, this person 41.140.29.166 is the vandalism of pages of demographics and Algeria section Haratin me while I put references in what I wrote. Excuse me for my English because I speak very badly and have difficulties to express myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comesturnruler (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that R.E.M. actually was not known as Twisted Kites during their first show, as legend has it. Buckley's book explains the band had no name until they chose R.E.M., and that Peter Buck was the only band member who advocated the name Twisted Kites. The name "Twisted Kites" appeared on one flier, but that was the only flier that made any mention of the then-nameless R.E.M., becuase thay made it a point to not promote themselves for that show since they hadn't picked a name. Mike Mills suspected Buck had something to do with that flier because he was the only one who liked the name. As of that first show, R.E.M. didn't have a name. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My main concern about the show aliases is that bands do them all the time, and usually one-off instances. Listening them all would be an exercise in detailing minutae only of interest to hardcore fans. This is quite different from a proper name change, like Kleenex to Liliput, or Warsaw to Joy Division, or Dinosaur to Dinosaur Jr, or On a Friday to Radiohead. In those instances, it would be quite necessary to indicate past proper names for clarity for readers. In regards to Bingo Hand Job and the like, bands do use those sort of aliases the time in order to not draw attention to themselves when setting up an unannouced performance, and listening them is essentially trivia, as it doesn't add anything substantive to the article, particularly since they wouldn't be mentioned in the article body itself (because they were one-offs and arren't important in the greater scheme of things). If the names were used for a prolonged period as the band's primarily means of identification, that would be different and I would be totally up to listing them in the infobox (as well as the lead section, since if a band had an alternate name for a length of time, it'd be important to note in the article body).

Also, in regards to It Crawled from the South, I've noticed a couple of little errors in it, which is why I refrain from sourcing it unless absolutely necessary. One of the primary errors is that it lists that "Radio Free Europe" topped the Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll, when a look at the poll archives reveals this to be false. Just a heads up. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Koavf, I'm Airplaneman. I have seen you a lot around TfD and had a question about transclusions: how do you count how many pages templates are transcluded on? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick way is to just use the "What Links Here" in the Toolbox on the side of the page. From here, you can de-select links and redirects. If you click on the "number per page", you can break them up into pages of up to 500 per page. If you edit the link at the top of the page, you can increase this up to 4999. Otherwise, to get a more precise count, try using EmbeddedInCount at toolserver.org. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWB can also be useful for this. –xeno^talk 17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also a user-friendly template transclusion counter here. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Koavf. I have noticed that you have listed a number of demo albums for deletion using speedy criteria A9. That criteria should only be used where the artist's article does not exist (having either never existed or been deleted). I agree that the notability of some of these albums is open to debate, but they should be PRODed or listed at WP:AFD. If you feel that demo albums occupy a grey area - which I think they may well do - you might consider making a request for comment. Let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - the speedy deletion criteria are somewhat arcane, to be honest with you. Music, in particular, has always been something of a problem. When CSD#A9 was dreamt up the feeling was that any music released by a notable band would be either inherently notable or at least worth discussing - I think most people would agree that most demo tapes are not notable, but the criteria are what they are. Generally speaking, the marginal articles shoudl be PRODed or listed at AFD - depending on whether you think someone will object - and the obvious hoaxes, nonsense, vanity pages and non-notable stuff should be speedied. The only problem is deciding which is which... See you around, Rje (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the tag from Satanic Blood for this reason. Perhaps you should double check any other albums you've tagged with this. ThemFromSpace 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Die Ärzte videos" are emty and you can delete it. Bigbossfarin (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Remain in Light. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Radiopathy •talk• 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, while I don't care for some of the comments that have been made towards you by Rafablu88 and Radiopathy, I do believe that you and Rafablu88 are engaged in a classic edit war on Remain in Light. Open an RFC on the content dispute if you need to, but the back and forth reverts should stop. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Koavf. 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.