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.
Hi Koavf, I was wondering if you could chime in on some discussion and some reverts happening at Huqúqu'lláh and Talk:Huqúqu'lláh. Originally an anonymous editor started adding some content based off some primary source material, which didn't match most of the secondary source material. There was some issue with the referenceing there, and I removed not only his content, but a lot of the content that was referenced by primary source material, and added back content to the best of my ability that was referenced with secondary source material. We've had discussions on the use of primary source material mostly on his and my talk page, and I'm trying to get him to come to Talk:Huqúqu'lláh, but he hasn't been coming that way. My claim is that if he has an understanding of a view of the primary source material, it shouldn't be too hard to find a secondary source that says that, but he hasn't come forward with any. He's also adjusting some of the wording of the content cited from the secondary source material, because it doesn't meet his understanding, which I've recently come to understand is from a minority Baha'i view. There are those Baha'is that don't follow the Universal House of Justice. THey are numbered in the hundreds, and so they are less than 0.1% of all Baha'is, and generally their views don't get published in secondary source material that mention the religion, except when talking about the divisions. There is a detailed page on them at Baha'i divisions. However, virtually all secondary source material that mention the Baha'i Faith refers to the religion that is centered by the Universal House of Justice. My understanding of undue weight states that unless there are secondary sources that document these other views in a reasonable proportion, that content should not be in Wikipedia, but I may be wrong.
It would be helpful if there can be some other viewpoints brought into the discussion. You can also see my talk page which has some very long passages that are about a whole bunch of things from the same anonymous editor.
User:Guiletheme has a complaint, note he's taken chopping some articles [1][2] but is currently just looking at the Janti article. I'll note that in the past some editors have worked across it and not found a problem including an another admin. Thoughts please. --Smkolins (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The Tri-Tone Fascination
We seem to be disagreeing on the vocals/language thing for Shawn Lane's second album. In this case it's not black-and-white, for he does perform vocals (I can't remember on which tracks), but they're of the 'non-word' variety like Annie Lennox or something like that—hence, I think to categorise the album as "English language" would be incorrect because not a word of English is actually sung. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Genres@Peter.loader:. Not every album by her is in that genre but how would we categorize by genre otherwise? Steve Martin has a clear division between comedy albums and his bluegrass albums, so they can be categorized as both for navigational purposes. Suzi Quatro is generally a hard rock artist, even if a single release from her can't be characterized that way. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles states "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define ... the subject as having." Though Suzi Quatro albums are commonly defined as having the genre hard rock, Annie Get Your Gun – 1986 London Cast is not of this genre. So Suzi Quatro albums are not consistently defined as having this genre. Hence Category:Suzi Quatro albums cannot be a sub-category of Category:Hard rock albums by American artists.
WP:OC#MISC makes it clear that it would be wrong to create a sub-category of Category:Albums by American artists by genre called something like Category:Albums by American artists with multiple genres. Instead it says "It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories. If there are some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories, leave the articles in the parent category." The best parent category that I can find for Category:Suzi Quatro albums (avoiding container categories) is Category:Albums by American artists.
@Peter.loader: That's true of articles. Categories are used for navigation. (NSFW language ahead but only because this is the best example that I know): If someone is looking for Grindcore albums, then they should be able to navigate to Category:Anal_Cunt_albums because that band is the most famous grindcore act. The fact that they released one parody soft rock album (Picnic of Love) should not stop their albums from being categorized as grindcore. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I can’t find any deletion discussion. Please drop me a note when it appears. —MichaelZ. 2014-01-16 16:31 z
Pearl Jam topic update
I'm just letting you know that the Pearl Jam topic is currently up for review to determine whether it should keep its status or not. The review can be found here if you wish to partake in the discussion. GamerPro6419:26, 17 January 2014 (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sina Weibo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
accounts of government departments, social media platforms and famous companies) weibo master ( people bind the accounts with their phone numbers and their followers. When the number of
@George Ho: No, I won't. Why would it be more productive to propose these at a page which has a backlog? Non-free media can be (and are routinely) nominated at FFD. Saying that I've been "very unproductive, as [I]'ve been often" is not only rude, it's unhelpful. What is your point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You always nominate images for deletion without discussing with uploaders first, even when the images may not belong to them. That's what I meant. Also, Masem could have responded, or any other person who frequently visits the page. Backlog shouldn't scare you away from NFCR. Someone is already there to frequently or occasionally close a review. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Conversation Why would I talk with the uploader first? That's probably going to be less productive because we'll go round and round and then I'll go to FFD. If the uploader has a good argument for keeping it, then he can just post it there. Still not sure why I should use NFCR rather than FFD: your explanation is just getting me more confused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In FFD, you prefer one, while Steven has no preference. I'll rephrase reasons for NFCR: communication with me and you should have been easier. The third-party should have made comments; you would have understand that omitting valuable images does harm more than good. George Ho (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
others said about Ira Ward? For instance, how did you ever hear of
him? —Justin (koavf)❤[[User
talk:Koavf|T]]☮C☺M☯
09:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Cymru
Wales is not a sovereign state, but it is a nation and a country for many purposes, and internationally recognised as such.
This is particularly true of sport and religion - which some would say are the same thing. It is nonsensical to talk of UK rugby or soccer, as the constituent countries have their own governing bodies and national
teams.
Likewise, Wales has a national assembly and national library.
In terms of religion, Scotland is treated as a nation and a country by
most churches (only the likes of the JWs ignore this)... Wales less so,
but still significantly so. In the case of Anglicanism, Wales has its
own church - the "Church in Wales"... Roman Catholicism does not treat
it separately, but it is considered such for many other denominations,
most notably Methodism, and Presbyterianism.
I'm amazed that I have to explain this to a supposedly educated person, but you appear misinformed and misguided on this question. (tildes unavailable, will hopefully be signed automatically)-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Categorization So what are you proposing? Categorizing Wales as a "country" sometimes but not others? That's even more confusing and arbitrary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you knew anything about Wales (or that matter Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland), you'd be aware of how many contradictions and anomalies that there are in this regard. Yes, Wales is treated as such for many purposes but not all purposes... as a result of the vagaries of centuries of history.
Rather than discussing this in some dark corner of Wikipedia that few ever venture into other than would-be bureaucrats, why don't you actually discuss this with people who come from Wales or at least know about it?!-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@MacRusgail: This is not a Wales-specific issue: any other entity which could be referred to as a "country" for some reason but isn't a sovereign state would have the same issue. There is an entire scheme of "X by country" and it's intended to include sovereign states. There are also schemes of "X by nationality/ethnicity" which could include the Welsh or Manx or African-Americans or Hausa or the endless amount of people groups whom we could identify. The linguistic accident that the constituents of the UK are called "countries" (although sometimes Northern Ireland is called a "province") shouldn't break our schemes of categorizing by sovereign state. Finally, you should stop insulting me--I overlooked it in your first message but I won't in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there is such a scheme. I know from bitter experience though, that these discussions are decided by a small minority of wikipedians with little knowledge of the matter that they speak of. Usually in some part of Wikipedia most of us haven't heard of. In the real world, Wales is treated as a country for many religious purposes. The Church in Wales for example, is as much a national church as the United Church of Canada. It is not part of the Church of England, or any UK-wide church. It is part of the international Anglican Communion, which is something different again.
This isn't a "linguistic accident" by the way. And it's actually pretty offensive to us to call us "accidents". As I keep telling you - please discuss this with people who know about Wales, on a Welsh board.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Please fix Template:Dmoz It should NOT be adding a slash at the end of the generated url, as it isn't necessary and it breaks if the value entered already has a slash at the end. Because of caching, the error isn't easily caught. Thanks! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
10,000 Maniacs Unplugged
What makes you think that is an unreliable site? I would definitely like to get that information on there as it is something will be interested in. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not a ban it's a block and the banned user template can only be used for users who have actually been banned. Plus edit warring over it really doesn't achieve anything! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Koavf. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 05:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'd like to request that you withdraw your proposal to delete philosophy redirects. If this proposal goes through, it could create a lot of unnecessary work for me. We don't need to tag every single redirect, and there are probably ten times as many of those as actual targets. We only need to tag the ones which should reasonably should be monitored for their popularity. Tagging all of them would be a huge waste, and tagging none of them would be a huge loss. Help me out here. I do too much work as it is. Greg Bard (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
GA reassessment
Anjem Choudary, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
did you remove the wounded warrior work from Buren Fowler' page? i if so, why, it is factually accurate, verifiable, and a huge part of Buren and Paul's life. was it in the wrong format? User:Averyhise
Wikipedia is holding a contest called the WikiSnap Challenge
The goal of this drive is to eliminate poor stub articles with not so much as a picture or info box. The contest starts on the 3rd of April and continues until a winner is declared.
Awards will be given out for all participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the contest.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Veggies:: The answer to part one: Maybe. The answer to part two: You can check the sources. I have not included everything from Davison, only because I haven't had enough time. For what it's worth, I have noted in HTML comments what I'm supposed to come back to do at some point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I wanted to let you know I'm poring through Davison piece by piece, volume by volume. I will soon be updating the list to make it as complete and authoritative as possible. It won't be up for a bit, but I wanted to give you an early heads-up. Thanks for your work. -- Veggies (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved from user page
Dear Sir
Please cna you check refs for pages - "Christopher Bullock" and also "Family of Duchess of Cambridge"
I think its now pretty clear the article covers a topic that Serbia itself has completely repudiated at should have been kept as I originally edited it as it having been abolished like the Serbia based Police and Court systems. The assembly was based on a Serbia run elections that Serbia doesn't even do anymore. It was parallel elections created parallel institutions that Brussels abolished. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit that states Mr. Dietl is Chairman of the New York State Security Guard Advisory Council. According to their website Mr. Robert S. Tucker is and Mr. Dietl is not even listed as a member of that organization. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Koavf, it's nice to meet you. Listen, if you don't have some other Wiki-activities at the moment, can you take a look at Megadeth? I'm planning to nominate it for FA, and I could use some help from an editor who knows the language better than me. Can you go through the text and see if there are any obvious issues with the comprehensiveness or grammar? Of course, if you find some other aberrations, please post them at the review page. I really appreciate your time. Enjoy the holidays and everything the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't, but I don't think I'll receive any feedback because that project has been semi-active for quite some time. But thanks, appreciate a lot your help over there.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring on this, and other articles, to add an unsourced claim that Netscape, aka Mozilla, bought a company / project that was called "Mozilla" before they bought it and renamed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a printworthy redirect because it is a notable topic in its own right (it would pass WP:N), although no-one is suggesting that its particular history isn't better handled within the overall article. It is not a non-printworthy redirect in the sense that mis-spellings etc. are, even other name variants. NewHoo (and GnuHoo) had independent history of their own, before ODP and before DMOZ. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Printworthiness If you think it's printworthy, then you should recategorize it rather than reverted me and call me an idiot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I hate siding with Andy, but ...
He's right. Your edits, such as this one, are counterproductive. Please don't continue to do that. I pointed you at WP:NOTBROKEN and you don't seem to have taken its message to heart. There's nothing at all wrong with linking to a redirect page, and "fixing" them by adding a pipe costs far more than the link to a redirect costs. Edit warring over them costs astronomically more than linking to a redirect costs.—Kww(talk) 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@KWW: The diff you linked was before you mentioned WP:NOTBROKEN. Also, you're supposed to link the first instance of something, which I did when I linked NewHoo in the previous sentence. You are confused about the chronology here. @Andy Dingley: I would be very interested in what would happen if you would bring this to ANI. If you feel it's appropriate, go for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you persist in making stuff up? The project was (amazingly enough) not named Mozilla until after Mozilla bought it. The fact that you have more edits on WP is not a free pass against WP:RS, edit-warring or basic accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Naming I never claimed that it was named that prior to acquisition by Netscape! Problem solved! I also added the citation that you wanted and corrected your inaccuracies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You keep changing a number of articles to imply that the project was already called DMOZ when Netscape acquired it. This is incorrect. It was called NewHoo at that time. Then they renamed it to ODP, then it gradually acquired the de facto name DMOZ. Your own cite supports this.
Actually, you're mistaken: I'm not changing the articles to imply that—I'm changing the name that is presented there to the current name of the article on the topic. It may be the case that what you are saying is implied but you are incorrect that this is what I'm trying to do. All of this could have easily been resolved politely on a talk page rather than getting angry, being mean, and getting anyone else involved. Also, it turns out you were factually wrong anyway about the naming. Even if you were correct this entire time, you are acting inappropriately and that makes you in the wrong. Less patient editors would probably fight fire with fire, so you should reconsider if you want to throw around slurs in the future or if you want to be a polite and civil person. Furthermore, you keep on asserting that I "don't understand" things which I do in fact understand. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
"—I'm changing the name that is presented there to the current name of the article on the topic."
Another thing you evidently don't hold with - printworthy redirects can (and often should) be categorized too. Please stop removing these. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Categorization You're mistaken again. I actually authored the guidelines at WP:ALBUM for categorizing redirects and earlier today, I added categories to a redirect that were removed from them contrary to said guidelines. You are adding categories that don't belong, as NewHoo and DMOZ are two names for the same thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
What's your point here, "I'm right because I'm right"? Why do you keep going on about music here? DMOZ has nothing to do with rap! Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's why. You claimed "Another thing you evidently don't hold with—printworthy redirects can (and often should) be categorized too." This is another inaccuracy that you're propagating. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NewHoo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Complete Rarities: I.R.S. 1982–1987, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King of the Road (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.
How do you submit pictures onto Wikipedia? I have a picture to submit onto Three Friends of Winter that does not already exist on Wikipedia, but I don't know how. (sniff, sniff).
Please do not add hatnote indiscriminately to article as you did in Mandopop. Please read examples given in WP:HAT. It should be used when there is ambiguity in the name used, not something as different as Mandopop and Magnapop. The two are not similar enough and it's very unlikely that someone will mistake one for the other. Hzh (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Hzh: I understand how hatnotes work. If you don't think these are confusingly similar names, that's fine but remove the hatnote from both: it makes no sense for one article to have it and the other to not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring?@Andy Dingley:, you're consistently obnoxious or at least passively aggressive. If it wasn't introduced then, when was it introduced? Please add a citation and make the encyclopedia better. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You provided a citation that HTML 4.01 used it in 1999.
@Andy Dingley: Honest question: Is it difficult for you to be nice? Are you this rude all the time or is it something that you reserve just for here? I've not been rude to you so I can't imagine why you are so consistently abrasive to me. I'm sure I'm wasting my time pointing this out or genuinely asking why you are such an off-putting person but I'd be remiss if I didn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You added "1999 introductions", which is incorrect. I removed it. You have edit warred since to re-add it. If you can't work out that this implies I disagree that it's a 1999 introduction, then there is little that can help you. I don't know why you thought it was a 1999 introduction, it's one of the (almost canonically so) most well-documented things on the web. You're now edit-warring to remove NewHoo (the original name of the DMOZ project) from the DMOZ category. Why, other than a fit of pique at being corrected? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Why? Because—as has been explained at length to you several times—we don't categorize every variation on a name of something in the same category as that thing. NewHoo *is* DMOZ: they are two names for the same project. Including NewHoo in Category:DMOZ assists no one in navigation, which is the purpose of categories. If I were as polemical and rude as you, I would write, "rv. doesn't understand categories". So I'll ask again: why are you such a petulant ass to me rather than a decent or kind person, Andy? Eagerly awaiting your response. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Discuss the edits, not the editor. I don't care if you like me or not - alt still wasn't introduced in 1999, no matter how many times you re-add it.
Also, if personality is on the table, I find you insufferable for your quite literal 'holier than thou' attitude and air of arrogantly assumed moral superiority. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Eagerly awaiting still, Andy. Everyone makes mistakes but not all of us deliberately and repeatedly. I like how I can learn things here by collaborating. What I don't like is someone acting condescending and being unhelpful. Looking forward to more unanswered questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing the bare URLs in the Grateful Dead references section, as I explained in my edit summary there. Can you please describe exactly where they are, using the current footnote numbers or some other means? Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)05:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mudwater: It was what is presently number 79, which I believe you fixed. Simply put, I had the article open in a tab and came back to it and it appeared to have a bare link (although this is still a dead one). Thanks/sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It was a different one that I fixed, by commenting it out, here, but I guess it amounts to the same thing. So, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)05:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Albini as Producer vs Engineer
Hi Justin, how are you? I hope you have been well. I was wondering if you have any opinion about the discussion I tried to start a while back here. Not sure if you have seen this comment already—though I know you started this category. Basically, some of the articles I have worked on (Pacer) or hope to do lots of work on soon (such as Title TK, Mountain Battles) list Albini as engineer (or sometimes "recorded by"), not producer. As I wrote in the discussion, I am aware there can be a grey area between these two roles. But I believe "producer" suggests a more active contribution in contributing ideas, whereas "engineer" suggests only controlling the consoles, and letting the artists make the musical decisions. It is possible that Albini may or may not always have an active role, and that he chooses to call himself "engineer" out of modesty or respect for the artist—I know that sometimes he even goes by nicknames or goes uncredited. But as it is now, I don't feel totally comfortable having this "Albums produced by Steve Albini" category on the articles I am trying to bring to GA status. I think it's presumptuous to assume we know better than what is written in the album credits—especially if he himself, for whatever reasons, identifies with the "engineer"/"recorded by" label. But I also am reluctant to remove this category totally from the articles because it is nice to have a category showing albums he was involved in. I think changing the category to "Albums produced or engineered by Steve Albini" would solve all problems. This name change also does not discount the possibility that he may well often have an active role even when listed as "engineer"—but it is just a safer and less presumptuous name for the category. (I guess for consistency we would also need to change the current "Songs produced by Steve Albini" category.) What do you think? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources This is really solved by sourcing: if an album says it was "engineered" but not produced by Albini, then that's the best guideline we have. If something was "recorded" by Albini, that is probably equivalent to "produced". But I think it's also true of Albini in particular that he chooses to be credited with these ambiguous or reductive roles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Although "recorded by" is a vague term, if anything I think its literal meaning is closer to "engineered by". Literally, it means "controlling the recording equipment" (no active contribution of musical ideas can necessarily be inferred from the words alone). But that question aside, are you saying my best course of action is to simply remove the "Albums produced by Steve Albini" category from albums where he is listed as engineer? Yeah, I could do that, but that could cause a lot of confusion down the road for people who don't understand the distinction. And based on my argument above that "recorded by" is literally closer to "engineered by" this could potentially mean removing from lots of articles, including high-profile ones like In Utero for example. It just seems quite a lot easier to just change the category to be more all-encompassing. For most producers, the category "Albums produced by X" is clear. But in Albini's case, if we only include albums where he is listed as "producer", it may not leave many albums on the list. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Granted But there is no category tree of Category:Albums by engineer and if you tried to create one, it would probably be deleted as trivial. I'm sure there are reliable sources which call Albini the "producer" of In Utero. I completely understand your point and this example is one where the language is a bit tricky but even if we erred on the side of including all kinds of recordings, I don't think there would be much objection, considering how prolific he is and how vague the terminology can be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Justin. Ah, the whole category tree consideration had not occurred to me at all. OK, think I will just let this proposal drop and live with the current state of affairs. Thanks for talking this through with me. Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Somehow the file File:Almost Made Ya.jpg which you nominated for deletion in January, never made it to the page, or was accidentally removed. If you believe the image should be deleted, please re-submit a new deletion discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited To Be Kind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dulcimer (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.
RfA@JohnSmith5000100: Oh sure. I've never nominated myself because it seems slightly vain and like some trouble but if someone else thought I'd make a good fit, I'd be happy to do it. I admin on some other projects (WMF and otherwise) and I know how the tools and community norms generally work. Also, in the past, I had a long block/ban history, so before I ever got into adminship, I wanted to be clear of accusations that I'm too hot-headed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you enable the edit-counting tools.20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith5000100 (talk • contribs)
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.
