User talk:Akrabbim

Archives

/Archive 1 September 2005—July 2006
/Archive 2 September 2006—November 2009
/Archive 3 December 2009—March 2010

Wikipedia:AWB/Tasks

Hi, can you take care of the tasks over there? --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see what I can do with the time that I have. I'm surprised that there is a backlog filling - a few weeks ago I had to see the change on my watchlist within a few hours if I didn't want someone else to snatch it up! —Akrabbim^talk 11:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, maybe it's a slow period for Wikipedia. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Another one for you. Could you please change [[Wild Horses (song)|Wild Horses]] to [[Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song)|Wild Horses]]? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Akrabbim^talk 00:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denez Prigent

Do you intend to edit the article again ? No problem if you don't, I'd just like to know. Oyp (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do, though I have been very busy lately and haven't been able to edit much of Wikipedia at all. I have another two or three weeks left in this semester, and after that I should be able to get on here more. It is on my list for when I do pick up my editing again. —Akrabbim^talk 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxesAs someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]NiceI like it. Much better than my version was. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Glad to be of service! —Akrabbim^talk 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Album ratings default stateGreetings, Akrabbim. At Template talk:Album ratings#Width, there is a discussion about several of the default values for the {{Album ratings}} template. Of the several editors who have commented about the "state" parameter, there seems to be agreement that the best default value would be "plain", so that by default the hide and show options are not there. I'm not too familiar with template syntax and parsing. Would you be willing to change the default to "state=plain"? Thanks in advance. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]I've started a separate discussion thread just about this, at Template talk:Album ratings#The best default would be "state=plain". — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] After a quick discussion at Template talk:Album ratings#The best default would be "state=plain", I've removed the "state" parameter from the template. Feel free to comment there. And by the way, thanks for your work on the template. — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:Album ratings proseTemplate:Album ratings prose has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Muhandes (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Peter LehmannWhy are you requesting deletion of Peter Lehmann? (I just changed it from a redirect to a disambig with 2 entries though formatting could be improved.) RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]I am deleting it so Peter Lehmann (disambiguation) could be moved to its place. This was because I created the disambig page before I moved Peter Lehmann (winemaker) from Peter Lehmann. Same result, different path. Sorry for the confusion. —Akrabbim^talk 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Deleted and moved. RJFJR (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ah, you're an admin, nice. Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (ec)I've removed the redirect from Talk:Peter Lehmann to Talk:Peter Lehmann (winemaker), now that Peter Lehmann no longer redirects to Peter Lehmann (winemaker). I'll leave someone else to decide whether Peter Lehmann (author) has appropriate references to secondary sources. At the very least I did feel that Peter Lehmann (winemaker) probably qualified as primary topic. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I was mostly just responding to the question at WP:HD#There are 2 "Peter Lehmann", but only 1 to find with the search button, and since neither article seemed obviously more popular to me at first glance (I know next to nothing about psychiatry or wine), I guessed that the db page should be at Peter Lehmann. It won't bother me what ends up where in the end; I will also leave that up to someone else to decide :) —Akrabbim^talk 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talk page/DiscussionThat was not a talk page. The link that you gave me does not apply there. Quest09 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] Conversation continued at User talk:Quest09#Reference desk comments. —Akrabbim^talk 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Message for Akrabbimhttp://tehcake.com/video/Withoutatrace/3x12.html That's the website address which shows Without A Trace Season 3 Episode 12 called Penitence. Is it okay for you to watch the Episode called Penitence? YES OR NO.(99.88.78.94 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]NO, sorry. I'm not really interested in watching this show. Maybe you could look around to see if you can find any fan or general movie/TV forums where you can discuss these shows and movies with other people who have seen them. Wikipedia isn't really the best place to have these conversations. —Akrabbim^talk 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]MESSAGECan you please watch Penitence when you get a chance? During the Prison Yard Fight in the Episode called Penitence, I actually believed that MacAvoy broke out of prison but 2 of the guards were bribed to take MacAvoy to the church inside the prison. MacAvoy got murdered by his friend inside the Church.(99.88.78.94 (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]MessageOH MY GOSH!!!!!! I'm unable to understand most of the events in the movie called Frequency, so that's why I'm asking questions about the movie called Frequency. On Wikipedia Reference Desk Website, is it okay for me to ask questions about the movie called Frequency?(Sean Archer123 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian maritime history#Green Cape Lighthouse photosHi there. As I was the uploader of both images, you could have probably saved yourself some time by asking me directly. Anyway, I am now back from "vacation" so I had time to look at it, and the result of my research is there. I hope this helps. --Muhandes (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]OK, thanks. I don't know why I didn't think to look who uploaded them. —Akrabbim^talk 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Beatles lineupOnce again, the infobox says "members", not "current members". The lineup from the first record in 1962 until the formal breakup in 1970 was John, Paul, George and Ringo and were often referred to as The Fab Four. Before they became famous, there were two former Beatles, Stu and Pete who were officially Beatles. So to make sure they can never be mistakenly called the Fab Six, the members are John, Paul, George and Ringo and the former members are Stu and Pete. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Problematic AWB editsHi there. I just noticed that you used AWB to add a number of {{Rename media}} tags to images. As a result, you created about 700 broken rename tags, singlehandedly populating Category:Incomplete file renaming requests. I will clean up the mess, as it seems that there are a good number of images that need listing for deletion, but please do not a) use AWB for a template that requires manual input, or b) run an AWB program on behalf of another user. That user should run it himself or herself. For the sake of discussion, the person you were running this for should have known that AWB would have caused issues in this case, so I'm rather puzzled by the whole affair. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]I wasn't aware that the new name field was required. Looking at the output for the code that I was adding (here for example), it doesn't look like to me that the template is "broken". And I think that the reason ("largely duplicative filename") explains well enough that the new name doesn't matter, as long as it is slightly different. As for running AWB to help other users, we have WP:AWB/Tasks set up for exactly this reason, and that is where this particular request was made. There are various reasons why users wouldn't have access to the AWB tool but still need something done using it. —Akrabbim^talk 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Discussion on linking to streamed copies of albumsWikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Disambiguation link notificationHi. In your recent article edits, 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.Katy Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to All I Ever WantedMatt Thiessen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to All I Ever WantedIt's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Sorkin disambigsWho the hell are you to remove the disambig/distinguish from the two Sorkin pages, namely Andrew Ross Sorkin and Aaron Sorkin ??? Clearly these are required to ensure that the proper Sorkin is referenced, especially for TV viewers who confuse the two. I will not go away or back down from your unjust and unapproved reversals either. Govern yourself accordingly. 173.50.106.27 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]There is nothing ambiguous about those two names, other than what is resolved on the Sorkin page. I don't think that there is enough potential confusion that makes the message necessary. In fact it may even cause some confusion to people that are at the right place. And there is nothing unjust about my edits. Those don't have to be approved, just like no one had to approve your edits. It's all part of how the editing process works. —Akrabbim^talk 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Bollocks!!! Your commonsense is lacking in your recent edits to Andrew Ross Sorkin and Aaron Sorkin, which are nothing short of Vandalism at this point. Please desist from future edits here unless you have a compelling reason other than "I still don't believe this belongs". 173.50.106.27 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Did you read my reply? I've already explained some of my reasoning why "I still don't believe this belongs". Also, vandalism would imply that my intentions lie in an attempt to detract from the quality of the project, which is not the case. We simply disagree; no one is vandalizing here. Simply put, I don't see any ambiguity in these two articles that require an disambiguation. Andrew and Aaron are completely different names. We have these notices for cases like George H.W. Bush/George W. Bush and John Woo/John Wu, not Aaron/Andrew. If we put a hatnote on every single person's article that shared a last name with somebody else, then it would be overkill. Once again, I think it could be an additional cause for confusion where there wasn't one to begin with. Maybe someone hears Andrew Ross Sorkin's name on the news. They punch it in to Wikipedia, and the first thing they see is something telling them that they might be confused with Aaron Sorkin. Now, since they recognize Aaron's name (for being a famous person and all), now they must do additional reading to make sure they were in the right spot all along. If all they could remember was a last name, then Sorkin takes care of everything. I think those cases are much more common than someone wanting to look up Andrew and only remembering Aaron's name. —Akrabbim^talk 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]You reasoned: "Maybe someone hears Andrew Ross Sorkin's name on the news. They punch it in to Wikipedia, and the first thing they see is something telling them that they might be confused with Aaron Sorkin. Now, since they recognize Aaron's name (for being a famous person and all), now they must do additional reading to make sure they were in the right spot all along. If all they could remember was a last name, then Sorkin takes care of everything. I think those cases are much more common than someone wanting to look up Andrew and only remembering Aaron's name." That's the reason as to exactly why the disambigs should also remain on both pages. Thanks for understanding. 173.50.106.27 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]