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.
Hello Kovaf. I removed Category:2006_debut_albums from In_the_Sun_(song) because it wasn't released 2006, wasn't a debut, and wasn't an album. Please let me know why you restored it.
Sure I don't want to seem rude (your note is actually very considerate) but I just don't care. If that's what you think is best, then go for it. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Koavf. I'm not going to revert the edit but I wanted to give you the answer to the question. The reason to remove it is that the category is empty, no bots have done assessments or used this parameter/category in at least 2 years. Additionally, its a useless parameter anyway. Aside from that if the project wants to use it or keep it, it really doesn't bother me. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not likely. All of the bot operators who were willing to do that have either left or havebeen kicked out. All the bot operators who are left are ultra conservative and won't do this type of edit. They'll do maintenance work like dated maintenance tags and adding GA/FA icons to promoted articles and build reports. But making actual changes isn't likely. Also, if a project wants to have it we can always add it back. But having hundreds of empty categories and unused logic in templates is rather pointless. We have enough garbage cluttering the place we don't need this unused stuff. Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
One category or template isn't a problem, hundreds of empty categories are. Hundreds of templates with useless code making them uneecessarily confusing and difficult to edit are and tens of thousands of articles with a useles parameter left by mindless bots are the problem. Not one thing individually. Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please review the history and talk pages. That editor has assumed consensus after making accusations and then started going to other articles where he is reverted and does not listen until the page is his way and then he just dissimulates. I've stopped short of an edit war but he's clearly going against the grain on several articles. I'd appreciate an informed yet independent view. Admin John Carter got involved briefly but hasn't chimed in again since his last action. I'm very frustrated and not one normally to appeal to rules but this is out of hand in my view. --Smkolins (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor made comments about the Baha'i Faith appearing in many articles and that this was wrong and tried to shift the content - no discussion, no citations, just judgement and action. The changes were undone. Then a registered user appears making same case. He starts making the same changes, without discussion, and they are undone again. It is pointed out to him he should discuss this and needs citations for his choices. He makes a single comment, no evidence just claims, then makes the changes again claiming he's made his case and then goes to other articles saying he's made his case in another article. When he is reverted in other articles he places sweet talking notes on the editor's who reverted him and they say no - take it to the original article. Meanwhile I see it and start replying that no this is not an obvious case. His language does not assume good faith. He reverts two editors (three if he was the anonymous editor) and keeps pushing his point that he is just right, it's obvious to him. I realize I'm in an edit war nearing the three revert rule and stop reverting him myself after other editors did already but keep up a commentary that essentially he is making changes and the fact of discussing it is not evidence. I keep pointing out that a group decided the balance more than once and that there are clear markers of distinction for the Baha'is beyond that of other smaller religions (he keeps mentioning different ones and on one side article promoted another religion.) The other admin that had first reverted him, alas, is on a wikibreak, a fact I didn't notice at first but had placed a comment on his talk page saying this was degenerating. Reviewing the article and talk pages especially in late 2010 I found the state of the article to reflect the conditions he is contesting. The Baha'i Faith is mentioned once in the lead and picture, is mentioned rarely in the text and not in each section as the other three and most of the commentary on the religion is in a section near the bottom but distinguished from and above a briefer section on the less significant religions. He wanted a simpler distinction of purely isolated mention all together in one "smaller religions" kind of grouping (in other articles he uses "other views" kinds of divisions even if there was no other member of the group.) As this has been going on a couple editors have chimed in mostly on the side of maintaining the status quo. That editor ultimately only provided one citation noting the three. That the three are the obvious mentions in many sources is not in contention. That the Baha'i Faith is clearly mentioned more often when there is a fourth mentioned has been suggested with a wide variety of links and attempts at reviewing how often other religions than the three are mentioned. I have the feeling that because I refused to engage the edit war it looks like I'm arguing against the norm by trying to put the Baha'is in the lead when in fact they were in the lead before and I was just trying to keep the pattern stable until it was discussed and decided on, with reflection that this had been discussed and a particular balance had been arrived at. He says he doesn't believe me because I'm biased and his pov is just obvious. But remember this all started with a po argument he just went ahead making changes in a few articles and then started discussing it. --Smkolins (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And now his last comment is beyond the pale, openly echoing the worst innuendoes about the religion and "yelling" at me with caps. --Smkolins (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to absent myself from further exchanges with him directly. I've pointed the group to links I found of the previous states of consensus. I'll continue to provide helpful information as needed but feel the level of personal abuse makes exchanges with that editor unproductive. I don't think banning is enough.--Smkolins (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncertain on a point of process - I was thinking of tagging the editors who had participated in the consensus previous to see if they wanted to chime in on the new situation but wasn't sure if there was a rule about getting people to "turn out" on an issue - but for what it is worth the people involved in 2010 were: Aquib American Muslim, Someone65, Carl.bunderson, Jeff3000, SarekOfVulcan, none of whom have chimed in at present. All the people that participated in the 2012 discussion have chimed in. LadyofShalott and Rursus have also chimed in occasionally but not on either specific occasion and not at present. --Smkolins (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverting' Simply point me to his contributions and I'll happily revert him: the process is to respect consensus and he's not making his case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Alas more dust perhaps. The discussion continues. Your views if you wish could be useful. See Abrahamic Religions talk page. --Smkolins (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
One other thing I did was to remove |class=NA this will enable correct lisiting of the category pages in the "Jazz articles by quality and importance" table. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Tollberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atlantic League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Justin, I noticed you removed the Neil Young border(s) and watermark! If you can, or if you can find someone who can, I really didn't notice the watermarks... I uploaded and placed the infobox photos for each of the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the main photo with all four, one with Stephen Stills and Neil Young, and two more that have all four artists performing in their 2006 tour in two photos displaying two amazing backdrops during their performances. If you can assist in removing the watermarks on those last photos or find someone who can, it would be great. I uploaded most of the photos on all of their articles earlier (except Stills to a degree) but they are OK, Thanks at least for the effort. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, its me again, I have a friend for you to meet. His name is 1995Guy and just like me he have autism. Feel free to help him out, and I will do my part too (if the time will allow it).--Mishae (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I am Benison. I like the picture on your userpage behind the wiki logo. Can you please provide me the code for using the same on my user page. I would be blessed if and only if you are free, can do it for me by pasting it on my page?? Regards....Happy editing!!!! Benison talk with me15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem The relevant code is here:
<span style="background:#FFFFFF;position:absolute;top:-30px; left:-170px;z-index:-3">[[File:Banksy - Rat Photographer.jpg|alt=A stenciled painting of a rat holding a camera|170px]]</span>
For User:koavf, a outstanding editor with a very tender heart. Thanks not only for your help here on the Wikipedia, but just as importantly, having the rare talents of listening, and kindness without judgement, both here and the Wikipedia, but also the Real world. This was truly long coming. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:TeargardenByKaleidyscopev02.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:TeargardenByKaleidyscopev02.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Koavf, a few weeks ago you added a key (I think it's called that?) to Katy Perry. Another editor keeps removing this key; they do not give any reason for their removal, opting to remove it hidden within other edits. What purpose does the key serve? It is important that it remain? Thanks. Acalamari22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorting Yes, this is called a "sortkey" and is consistent with WP:SORT. The function is making this the first article that you see when you look through that category, which it should be as the main one. Why someone would remove it is beyond me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Media Adding media (files such as audio, images, or video) have to have one of three licenses: the public domain (anyone can use it for any purpose in any context), certain Creative Commons licenses (anyone can use it for any purpose, sometimes it has to say who originally created it), or a fair use file of something copyrighted. If your media fits one of the first two categories, it goes on the Wikimedia Commons. If it fits the third, it should be uploaded here. Either way, once it's uploaded, it can be inserted into any article with the following code:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KC Armstrong (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I created the above link, not knowing you had created a version without the disambiguator. I thought punctuation alone was not enough to disambiguate articles from one another? I will let you make the call--can you redirect one to the other, whichever is correct? Thank you very much and sorry for the confusion. --Another Believer(Talk)16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation There's also a disambiguation page (if you can believe it): Burn_Witch_Burn_(disambiguation). I don't really care how it's titled. We can leave both of the redirects for now and someone will come along and make the article in a few weeks. Until then, if you want to peruse the naming conventions and figure out which style is correct, you're free to do it. Thanks for the kind note. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Complaint about another Wikipedia user
Hello! I wanted to discuss a matter with you being that I feel I can trust you. There is a user here on Wikipedia named , User:Noommos. This user has been harassing me by stalking my activity and edits on the website. This user has gone so far as to delete several of my edits claiming that he deleted the edits because "they didn’t appear constructive" to him. How do I report this user? EricEgo 5:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Koavf. I am letting you know that, since you were listed in helping with getting the Pearl Jam studio albums topic to Good Topic status, that Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) has been released and as such there is a retention period to have it reach at least Good Article status by January 11th, 2014. If it does not reach at least Good Article status by the time the grace period ends, the topic will be placed at GTRC and will be decided to have its status remain or taken away. Thank you for reading this. GamerPro6420:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I will get blocked...
Hi Justin, can you be so kind to intervene here? I think someone wants to block me and do it silently as well. I come to understanding that people gathered here to block anyone who in their opinion is different... Sigh, Wikipedia is a great project, but because of such admins as those, the whole project gonna be in jeopardy.--Mishae (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghost Brothers of Darkland County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roots music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
if you check the talk page I'm suggesting the template is too obscure to be useful and the creator is going around tagging articles with it that have no substance to using it. --Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Just saw your recent edit at Template:Depeche Mode singles with an interesting edit commentary. 'Ugliness' is not a very good reason to make changes. There are a number of notable singles templates with decades and even years. Just take a look at the singles templates for U2, The Beatles, and The Cure. Without decades and years they'd all be much harder to read, and definitely less informative. I think we should remember also those who come to look for information in this encyclopedia. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ugliness Granted, aesthetics takes a back seat to being informative, but the two frequently intersect. Do you think that users have an easier time understanding the information with headings related to decades? When the decades column was there, the names of the actual songs was squished into a small column, making it less readable. Which version do you think makes navigation easier? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that having both the decades and album names makes the information easier to take in at one look. I fail to see the 'smallness' of the name column. There is a tiny technical flaw, the unnecessary gap between the left border and the right-aligned album titles in the second column. The design followed the then current version of The Cure singles template which I find remarkably practical and informative, despite its problems with column alignment. I also like The Beatles singles template, for its original and informative division. I believe that this little extra value at one look is something the readers want to see, also in "navigational boxes". It also saves time in looking for something, if they already know what it is. I don't think they see it as a technical widget first, but many read it without initial intention to click, and, dare I say, some of them thankful for not having to go to the very long dictionary article or 13 separate album articles to have the same general info on Depeche singles. --Sk4170 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies regarding usability on Wikipedia. It's obvious that we can't reach consensus on three columns ;) so having release years next to singles is a good compromise, and it's not that ugly. I'm glad we could agree this much. Thank you! --Sk4170 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Im going to get some sleep and come back to this. yes Rapcore is a Fusion genre. Its the releases "Pages in category "Rapcore compilation albums"" that probably need to get edited. They Clearly are Mostly Straight Up rap artists. Im not "genre warring". The four Entries "SRH Presents: Lose Your Illusions, Vol 1", "Too legit for the Pit: Hardcore Takes the Rap", "Vreme brutalnih dobronamernika" , "WWF Forceable Entry" need a better look. Clearly Most are in the Wrong grouping and should not be listed as or with "Hardcore Punk compilation albums" or anything even close to it. Thanks For your help.
Your religion
Hi Koavf, I have a not-very-typical question: In your user page you wrote you're a Christian, but one of your categories says "Jewish Wikipedians". So I'm just curious, what's the deal here? Regards, Yambaram (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Categories I'm auto-added to a category by saying that I eat kosher. I should actually just remove that... I don't want to misrepresent myself: I am neither a practitioner of the Jewish religion nor do I have any Jewish ancestry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That's nothing. I once became a canine, for a brief span of days, before I figured out than when discussing categories it was essential not to utilize the curlies. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Wow, nice job on all your edits on the Reality Bites page. I have had half an eye on this page for many years, done one or two edits to try to make it better, but now it is practically unrecognizable from the little page it was back then, just, really fantastic job! Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
...Good point. I did that edit based on seeing another page in the "TimedText talk:" namespace having a "file"-class rating on its applicable WikiProject banners. As that was my first edit in any "TimedText" page, I have a question you might be able to answer for me: are all pages in the "TimedText" space not files, or is that determined on a case-by-case basis? (Reason I ask is that I would like to determine how productive I can be in any namespace, and obviously create as little distruction as possible.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files Of course, in a sense, TimedText files are files—just like every piece of media on this and every other website. I don't mean to be pendantic or derogatory. As far as I'm aware, no WikiProject banner has an assessment for a TimedText class so they're all "NA"s. As far as helping out with TimedText, you can take a look at all of the files that are uploaded here which are audio or video and see which ones don't have TimedText associated with them. I made a list here awhile ago. If audio/video files don't have sound or only have a few ambient noises, those are the easiest ones to make! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No offense taken by that response in the least. That actually answered what I was more-or-less trying to ask, and that was what the assessment would be on the "TimedText Talk" pages for the sake of WikiProject banners. And with your introduction to the TimedText namespace, I now have a better understanding of what its purpose is (since I had never looked it up previously.) Thank you for the info! Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the information above! So, I thought I'd give you some information you might find helpful: Are you aware of the existence of this file? I don't know if you would find that information helpful or not, but, on a related note, I really should adjust my Watchlist settings at some point. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
We're talking here about the title of the article. The very first sentence of the link you supplied says (in bold!) Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun. There has already been another objection to this undiscussed move (see Talk:Nocturnal_After_John_Dowland). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Support: we are talking about an article which is a piece of music with a title. The article title should not follow whatever Wikipedia rules, but be exactly as that title, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Capitalization@Colonies Chris: I don't see how your point is relevant as this is a proper noun... That's exactly the point that I am making. @Gerda Arendt:, as you can see here, the MoS disagrees with you. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Capitalization. All of them are consistent on this. As far as the argument "it should be capitalized the way that the artist/company/etc. capitalized it", Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks allows for new constructions like "iTunes" to break these rules but not novel miscapitalizations of standard English like "dEsTrOyEr" or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No. The lower-case 'a' is how the title is rendered in all publications that refer to it. It's normal English, not some 'novel miscapitalisation'. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Style There are several approaches to styling English. E.g. The New York Times styles all initialisms which aren't pronounced as a word with periods between them (N.F.L. but UNESCO). I know of no other style guide for any publication which uses "N.F.L." but it's an editorial decision made by that publication. This publication has made the editorial decision to capitalize "after" in the titles of creative works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This publication has made a decision, - is this decision for ever? I questioned it on its talk. Dealing with mostly German titles which are faithfully copied from the original, I don't understand why English titles would be handled differently, without any advantage I can see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus Of course not forever! Any part of a guideline or policy is up for revision and discussion based on a consensus model. Note that the more radical the change or the more long-lasting the policy, the more difficult it will be to change it. Something like NPOV for instance, is really only amenable to slight variation. The reason for having a consistent style is exactly that: consistency. If sometimes you saw "NFL" and other times "N.F.L." or "after" capitalized sometimes but not other times in the same publication, it would smack of a lack of editorial oversight and laziness. The same thing is true here. Imposing styles—some of which are simply standard English, some of which are arbitrary—is part of what it means to have an editorial voice and professional writing. As far as the origin of the language of composition: how is that relevant? Titles in other languages use the capitalization conventions of that language but if they are translated into English, they use our conventions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Please be patient, English is not my first language. I didn't say other language is relevant, I only wanted to explain why I came across this MOS detail only now, after 4 years. I consistently change when I find all capitals in a title, but why change "after" to "After", when WorldCat - some kind of authority on publications - has "after"? Not to change a given title - even in English - could also create consistency, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
English Of course, I'm happy to explain. Different publications use different rules: why Worldcat uses "after" is beyond me. All I know is that we use "After". It's irrelevant what other style guides do: we have our own that we have written. I'm guessing that you speak German and that a similar situation exists in that language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going to revert this move per a request at WP:RMTR; Koavf's change may still be discussed a full RM. I wanted to note, however, as a librarian and a cataloger that specifically, that WorldCat should absolutely not be used as an authority on capitalization. The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, which dictated English-language cataloging from 1967 to earlier this year, prescribed sentence-case capitalization for just about everything. "John Dowland" is still capitalized thus because it's a personal name, but in general titles use lowercase in cataloging work. See, for example, Lord of the flies. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
:RM By definition, this would be a contested technical request. @BDD:. It's just being contested here. Had I seen it posted there, I would have pointed out all the style information from above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Pardon? Chris put a request in at WP:RMTR, which I processed. That just constituted the R in BRD; you can take it to a full discussion now if you'd like. For what it's worth, I do think your move was correct given MOS:CT, and I'll likely support it if taken to an RM. My reversion was strictly procedural. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a relative new addition, mostly meant to avoid the ambiguity that arises when someone unilaterally moves, someone else puts in an RM to reverse, and there's no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
!Voting@BDD:, the move request has been made. Please feel free to throw in your two cents. As I stated below, it's intensely frustrating that I even have to go through all this bureaucratic rigamarole for something so small and simple. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Formatting I don't know what the issue was in February of last year but I see that there are horizontal rules for no reason in these pages. As far as fixing dashes, this is something I've done on tens of thousands of pages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
But we've discussed this before. Once in December 2012 and once in February 2012. I don't care what you've done in tens of thousands of other edits. Please stop. I strongly dispute what you're doing. Let's discuss before you make more of a mess. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In this case, with the layout of the page, they separate the sections and cut up the whitespace to make it look more organized and neat. What harm does it do to leave these in? -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
WhitespaceWhat are you talking about? The "harm" is that they're ugly and not part of how articles are arranged on any other topic. They create an inconsistent layout with the rest of the encyclopedia—there's a reason why they're not used anywhere else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Without the bar, the Months box is jammed up the ass of the external links. The bar cuts the whitespace down the sides of the months box and below the external links and the commons box. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess we've succeeded in confusing each other. I don't know what that link shows. I'll be away for a bit, so let's keep the conversation going if necessary. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Layout There's no problem with the layout of article that have external links and then a footer template: that's how hundreds of thousands of articles are here (possibly millions) and there's no function served by a horizontal rule before the footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. It's just your opinion that the line make the page more aesthetically pleasing. There is no style reason why the horizontal line it should be there. All I can see is an "I like it" reason. It is inconsistent with the formatting of almost all other articles on WP, that makes it unnecessary and undesirable. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why it is undesirable. What harm is it doing? Koavf said "they're ugly". How is that not just an I don't like it reason? It ain't broke. Why does it need to be changed? Show me an argument that demonstrates that they are destructive to have in place? -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)02:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You're engaged in a tautological argument here. "It ain't broke" isn't a reason to retain them. There are plenty of things in this world that are plain pointless, and I see this is one of them. OTOH, the fact that such lines are not used in such fashion elsewhere on the 'pedia is reason enough to remove them. Just like we don't plaster articles with gratuitously with pretty pictures, we shouldn't have pretty horizontal lines just because they are doing no harm. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?03:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Mufka: Your argument is at least somewhat specious and bad faith (assuming that you looked at my edit summaries), since the MoS explicitly states "Horizontal rules... are no longer used in articles." You argued that the navboxes butted up against the external links too much so I showed you a perfectly appropriate fix for that: sister links to Wikidata. Whatever argument you have in favor of them is essentially "I like it" and runs counter to the MoS and long-standing convention on how the rest of the encyclopedia is formatted. Again, unless I miss my guess, only 365 out of 4,367,794 articles use horizontal rules. The argument that there is a consensus to use them just for this is overridden by a long-standing, well-worn, and universal style rule. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
MOS is a guideline and guidelines are not policy. They can be subject to occasional exceptions. The fact that Ohconfucius went and made the blanket change while this discussion is ongoing is truly a sign of disregard for good faith discussion. Why is this so important that it has to be changed immediately without at least letting discussion take place? In a show of good faith, I ask that those changes be reverted at least until this discussion is completed. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)10:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why? What more is there to discuss? No, guidelines are not policies, but don't going around pretending that you like for a particular format overrides the guideline. Consensus on this issue isn't determined on user talk pages but on the relevant guideline page. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I'll bring it up on the guideline talk page. Understand, even if the suggestion gets beaten down violently, and since I'll likely be the only participant from WP:DAYS at the table, I'll still consider a thorough discussion beneficial to the project. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)14:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Style Interminable conversations about minutiae which are already explicitly outlined in our MoS (cf. with the thread above this one) are so exhausting. There are so many better things to do with any of our time, especially since this is such a straightforward and small thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Rather than subst-ing {{Dmoz}} and then removing the tracking category, wouldn't it be neater to edit the template so that it only added the category when used in article space? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, it really should have been in the <includeonly> even if that were done correctly. I've removed it from the template and reverted all the substitutions that Koavf did that I could find. I'll delete my comment in the section below as being unnecessarily combative, but this should not have been done. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Namespaces@John of Reading:, I'll give that a shot. I'm pretty new to editing complex templates, although I've done it before. @Arthur Rubin:, you reverted some edits that you should not have but it appears that you've gotten all of the substs. I'll fiddle around with it to make sure that it only applies to articles (and maybe other content namespaces...? Thoughts?) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that {{dmoz}} was supposed to be subst'd? I've reverted all the examples that I've found, although I may have missed some, and there may have been some reversion of your edits which were not related to DMOZ. None of the latter changes were intensional. There is no reason for substituting in archives unless the exist code creates unavoidable damage. 23:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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 would be fine if you at least in some way acknowledged my engaging of your 6-words-long nomination with multiple sources and other evidence saying to the contrary. It's just so frustrating that people believe 6 words of opinion more than literally anything else, but maybe at least you would now change your mind or something and withraw it, because I think it's become quite farcical as it is. --Niemti (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
To consider it, because I see many people prefer your 6-word sentence with 0 sources over anything I write no matter and what I bring up (probably just don't even read any of it and go with a gut feeling). It's pretty depressing, and I spent literally several whole afternoons working on this category (I didn't start it, but it's just so important in the current state of affairs in mass media). Also you might read the discussion on the previous thread (1 month ago), which had many more participants because it was advertised in various places by one person. --Niemti (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your userpage
Hi, I would like to know how you managed to make your awards so small so that they wont block your username? I have a problem with mine. Can you be of help by any chance? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Width The width property says how large these icons can be from left to right. They were set at 35 pixels, which made them run on too far. I changed it to 25, which made them less wide. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. I'm happy that you're here, Mishae. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, me too. I'm happy that I can write articles here (and lots of them). Life is short, so writing many articles is a must.--Mishae (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indy Fuel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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.
Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Silence in the Library.png
Hi, Koavf you nominated File:Silence in the Library.png for deletion but its clearly used to help the reader visually understand what the Vashta Nerada looks like and the effect it has on the human body. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:African Union member states by head of state.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Debut single. Since you had some involvement with the Debut single redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-free use of File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv
Thank you for uploading File:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Thanks; so it looks like I'll have to continue uploading graphs to jpg files. I guess there's little difference in this respect between jgp, giff, and pdf, all of which Excel will produce. Tony(talk) 08:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya(Hello!) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. I am letting you know that the Good Topic Pearl Jam studio albums is on a retention period as the article Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) has been be at least up to GA status by January 15th. If on the 15th the article is not up to at least GA status, the topic has to go to GTRC where it would be determined whether it should have its status removed or not. Thank you for your time. GamerPro6400:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Destroyed., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITunes Festival London 2011 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Proposed deletion of 1965 – Through the Looking Glass
I have not logged on to Wikipedia for about 5 years. I note in my absence you have seen fit to delete the above page. Just because you have not heard of the content does NOT make it insignificant or unoteworthy. Speedy undeletion of the page and associated files thanks. Sa cooke (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@Sa cooke: You're half right: I can't unilaterally delete pages. All I can do is propose that they be deleted and if that proposal passes the community's muster, then it gets deleted. You are correct that just because I haven't heard of something that doesn't make it insignificant. Our notability guidelines are here. Did this page meet them? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: It sure [snip] does meet the notability guidelines [snip]. This is a compilation recording released by the now defunct music label Imaginary Records in the UK. The Stairs, a notable band from Liverpool (also defunct), recorded a song especially for the compilation - "Moonchild". This is notable for two reasons - The Stairs only released a small number of recordings, and this song is found nowhere else; and secondly the band had been signed to Go! Records, so this release is unusual. You know, this notability thing makes Wikipedia virtually useless. I am a teacher, and I constantly tell my students that the ONLY use they might have for Wikipedia is the reference sections on the pages they visit. This is because the rest of the information/propaganda on the site is political. Sa cooke (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Sa cooke: No, you don't or else you would take the extremely minimal effort to learn about notability, sources, and original research on the one hand and what the process is for deletion on the other. As I have already explained to you, I cannot delete pages and I also cannot undelete pages. I am trying to work with you here and all you're doing is being belligerent and rude to me. If you want the content undeleted, it's a very straight-forward process. The way you don't do it is by coming to my talk page and writing rude things to me. Do you understand? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: Ok - let me try again. I respectfully request you start the process to undelete the page you proposed for deletion. I have given you the notability justification. You must understand my frustration here. It does not take too much time and effort to understand that the pages I added to Wikipedia are notable - perhaps not to you, but certainly to others. Human knowledge is full of arcane but interesting backwaters, and this might be one of those. Except that I don't consider it a backwater at all. Sa cooke (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the ping. I'll assume you get notification of an edit on your talk page anyway. I did read the undeletion page, and I feel this section is relevent: If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. I assume you did not close the discussion, but you did propose the deletion in the first instance, hence I contacted you - at least your name was on the deletion proposal. Where to from here? Sa cooke (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting - I am unable to determine who deleted the page. Explicit deleted the talk page, but they have not been active now for over 10 months. Sa cooke (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Respected sir,
Can you create article "Dhriti pati sarkar" an actor of Chhattisgarh state India.
{{other people}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2011}}
{{Infobox person
| image = Dhriti Pati Sarkar.jpg
| caption = Dhriti pati sarkar 2011
| birth_date = {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1981|4|16}}
| birth_place = [[Bhilai, Chhattisgarh]], [[India]]
| birth_name = Dhriti pati sarkar<!--If you believe that an additional name is missing here, please find a reliable source to justify its inclusion. (Note that any website that simply mirrors this article cannot be used as a source wit"James Francis Cameron" is his full and entire name. Any unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people may be removed immediately, as per [[WP:BLP]]. Thanks.-->
| nationality = Indian
| citizenship = India
| networth =
| alma_mater = [[CGBSE]]
| home_town = [[Bhilai]], India
| residence = Satsang, Satsang road Contractors colony supela [[Bhilai]], Dist - Durg [[Chhattisgarh]], India
| years_active = 2nd feb 2001–present
| occupation = Businessman , Actor, Scientist
|notable_works = [[Bhakla]]
}}
'''Dhriti Pati Sarkar''' is an actor who had acted lead roll in Chhattisgarh film [[Bhakla]].<ref name="bhaskar">http://www.bhaskar.com/article/MAT-CHH-DURG-c-206-61132-NOR.html</ref>
== Background ==
He bourn in Sarkar Family.<ref name="bhaskar" />
== Early career ==
He was born to father [[Sura Pati Sarkar]]<ref name="bhaskar" />. He is the grandson of [[Kamlaksha Sarkar]] and a member of the [[Sarkar family]].In his childhood he sale vegitable in footpath of Supela market [[Bhilai]].
== Major Films ==
Bhakla<ref>http://www.bhaskar.com/article/CHH-DURG-c-206-23659-NOR.html</ref>
<ref name="bhaskar" />
Pradarshan <ref name="bhaskar" />
== Awards ==
Best actor from Bsp
== Collabration ==
With Jagruti Shubhamations
== Recurring themes ==
New character which have artistic humanity touch.
== Filmography ==
*''[[Dhriti pati sarkar Ka Dwand]] ''
*''[[Dhriti pati sarkar Ka Eklavya]]''
*''[[Bhakla]]''
*''[[Pradarshan]]''
*"[[Sabyasachee]]"
== Personal life ==
He born in Bhilai and his family lives in Bhilai.
Production company
Founded Flyingup Entertainment, Yocomsoft, and Abater.
Acting career
He started acting in 2001 in the short film ''Dwand''. Later, he started acting in theater and full-length films.At present he is working in hindi film Sabyasachee .
Scientific interests
Developing equipment in [[mechanics]].
== Books ==
*''My Economics''.
== Awards and nominations ==
Best actor in the [[Bhilai Steel Plant]] drama compettion.
== Influence ==
[[J K Rowlling]]
== Reputation ==
Wapian
== See also ==
*[[Bhakla]]
*[[Chhollywood]]
*[[Chhattisgarh]]
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== External links ==
*https://www.blackplanet.com/superstardhriti
*https://www.facebook.com/mysuperstardhriti
*https://twitter.com/superstardhriti
*https://plus.google.com/113649271090611360255/posts
*http://mehfeel.com/mehfeel/superstardhriti.html
*https://www.youtube.com/superstardhriti
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.
_by_Ron.jpg)
){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
