User talk:Jafeluv/Archive/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nominated for adminship

I think it was high time that you became an administrator. What say you? @harej 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you're curious about my surprisingly prompt support vote, I have User:X!/Tally on my watchlist, which gives me advance notice of many RfA's (i.e. it shows me as soon as the page is created, even if it hasn't been transcluded yet.) I still took the time to go through all of your talkpages like I would for a candidate where I voted later on in the discussion. I wish you the best of luck. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And I don't normally use it just to "get in first" because that would quickly get annoying (also, Im pretty sure Im not the only one who watchlists it). If I remember correctly I had to dash off to work and decided to just write my support vote right then when I had the chance. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Navah Perlman

That was roughly how the first version of the article ran in my head, before I started saving. :-) I really was in her music theory class at Brown, though I didn't know her more than by sight. I haven't been mooning over her for twenty years -- I just ran across her dad's article one day, and that triggered my memory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mona Consultants

I'm pretty sure it was, under Mona Consultants which is why they then tried the same material under Mona-Consultants and I'm sure we will get Mona--Consultants. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I must have dreamed it - I just remember it popping up again and again and must have got confused. I've proded it as the sources are directories and... wikipedia... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename Question

Hi, thanks for your comment regarding my wrong placing of the speedy-rename tag on article The_BestNGR. Which tag should I place on an article which has an obvious spelling mistake in its title? philippE (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


The correct spelling of the cow's name was already redirected, to be honest I think I mistakenly added the 'i' in there because I was checking the characters to see if their names redirected properly if they looked like unique names. It's hard to recall where 'Day of Saturn' came from, I think at the time I was reading the article I had seen the phrase used, based on the etmology it's equivilent to 'Saturn's Day'. Anyway, no: there was not a consensus to delete all of my redirects. The R3 tag was being misused. There was an agreement by a group of editors that they needed to be reviewed. Unfortunately, many of them are still being tagged and deleted without consultation, that's why I'm trying to keep an eye on it so I can get a say in before they go. Tyciol (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn't happen to be one of the redirects I'm fighting to keep, it's pretty old and honestly I can't recall why I made it at the time, possibly could have been reading an offsite article on it or something. Unfortunately enough, a less useful older one is better protected than a newer and more useful redirect subjected to the guilty til innocent judgement. Tyciol (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations, and my sympathies. :-) —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! And not a moment too soon with the backlog of tasks (Wikipedia:New_histmerge_list and {{admin dashboard}}). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
\o/ Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


After your nearly unanimous RfA, I have granted you the aditional rights and you are now an administrator. Spend some more time on the administrator's reading list, and be conservative with the tools, particularly blocking. Right or wrong, admins are the face of the project to many users and it's important to diffuse situations when possible and reduce tensions rather than increasing them. Keep up the good work, ask any questions if you're unsure, and I'm sure you'll do well. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

\o/ Congrats, Jafeluv! :D JamieS93 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Impressive RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks, everyone :) Jafeluv (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats. =D ƒ(Δ)² 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Thank you :P Jafeluv (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats; I'm glad you're paying attention at RfD - we badly needed another admin there. :) ~ mazca talk 17:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw a close you did on RfD. Congrats on getting the sysop bit. :-) Sorry it's a little belated. Killiondude (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Jafeluv (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Grats on the Admin promo. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:William Del Biaggio

Ok, I'll propose it for deletion. You're welcome. And, congrats on your successful RFA. BejinhanTalk 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RFCBot Jr.

Playing RFCBot until, the bot gets squared away? Good job, thus far :P 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Semi-retired, so have not seen the move discussion; nor did I expect there would actually be a discussion. I do actually disagree with moving the article to Atomized. However, I do not blame you for being bold at all, and Atomized is still much better than the previous article name. I just feel that my proposed move is better than Atomized because:

  1. Far more books published in USA than in UK.
  2. An actual translation instead of a new made up title.

Anyway, I think I will just propose a new move at some point. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot broken?

Hi there, I noticed you've been removing RM discussions on Wikipedia:Requested moves/current by hand... is the bot broken? I notice it hasn't updated the list in 3 days. -kotra (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone else has mentioned this. Do you know where it's being discussed? Is harej aware? -kotra (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of page using our own material

We have been researching and developing a web DBMS, now in use by several projects, and created a page about it in Wikipedia. We based this largely on a concise description we had already written and put on our web site. The new page was deleted by you as copyright material. We own it, how do we publish it? Ijohnson222 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FSC candidate

Heya pal,

I noticed that you participated at Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Livery_Stable_Blues. Since your support vote, an edited version of the file that removes hiss from the from file, has be suggested as an altenate version. Please return to the the FSC to see whether or not you support the editted version or not. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Movereq

Sorry about that, never done one before. Duly noted. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I just wanted to say that this was an excellent closure, with your closing comments being absolutely spot on. Good work! Nja247 19:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured sound status, File:Original_Dixieland_Jass_Band_-_Livery_Stable_Blues_(1917)_alternate_edit.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing this for Seddon, who forgot to do notifications. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I do hope you'll consider nominating some more. Featured sounds is a somewhat quiet process, but I'm pretty sure it should become fairly big once we hit 365 sounds, and thus can easily finangle ourselves onto the main page. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cydebot down

I've just noticed over the past few hours that Cydebot is not picking up the queues at WP:CFDW. This happens from time to time. I think when it does we need to notify User:Cyde to restart his server. Just so you know in case you see stuff not moving there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


re User:Bdm x2i which you deleted - I tagged it as a possible copyvio, you deleted it as a blatant advert. Given that it was both, how should I tag such a page in future? Is it worth putting both the speedy tags on there or does either suffice?  pablohablo. 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's both spam and a copyvio, just tag it with both. That way it's included in both categories, and will be found by people patrolling either category. I looked around for a bit but I didn't see where each part of the text was from right away (such as the list of technologies etc.). Since the page was blatant advertising regardless of copyright status, I just decided to delete it under G11 rather than try to figure out whether all of it was copied or whether there was something that the author added themself (usually in cases where not everything is copied it's not necessary to delete the whole article, removing the copyrighted content is sufficient). Jafeluv (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll bear it in mind.  pablohablo. 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio Handling

Hello. I notice you've just declined 1 of 2 blatant copyvio speedies, yet speedy deleted the other 1. Given there were no clean versions to revert to or subsequent substantive content, it was a copyvio from Day One, do you think it would be better to reconsider your decision? The action seems strange to me considering they were two basically-identical cases at the same point in time.

You chose to SubStub it to something like "x is a y", which leaves the copyvio revisions present along with the other 'shifting-furniture' edits from different editors on the copyvio content. This does not seem to tally with documented best practice. Another basis for asking you to reconsider your decision is that the scale of the issue may not have been apparent: The creator is—or at least was at that time—a serial creator of copyright infringing content. As well as the enwiki versions some content has proliferated across other language Wikipedias. My intention was: tailor actions to each case, rewrite if a suitable candidate. While some of the copyvios, albeit still needing rewriting, have at least *some* content from others (e.g. "Tater Du Lighthouse" which I'll try to deal with today), the one you declined to delete was not one of them. Thank you for your consideration, and of course your efforts in the G12 backlog queue in the first place. –Whitehorse1 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A cookie for you.

Choco chip cookie.png

Thank you Jafeluv for your help in the Danish Defence Intelligence Service matter. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Jafeluv (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations on your adminship, and thanks for helping pull the load at CSD. :) We've received OTRS permission for the article Heurist, and I noticed when I resurrected it that there was a statement of ownership on the talk page. Just wanted to point out that when there is even a "dubious assertion of permission" (as the criteria goes), it's best to list material tagged for WP:CSD#G12 at WP:CP by blanking it with the {{copyvio}}. No harm done, obviously, since it's simple enough to restore, but I believe the process developed that way because it seems less bitey and because the copyvio template gives explicit instructions what to do next in case the contributor can't figure it out from the nothanks on his or her talk page. (You'd be surprised how many can't. :/ This one did.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks a lot for your advice. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
NP. And, of course, the word "copyvio" caught my eye two notes above, so I figure I might as well point out to you our handy-dandy Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. Copyvios have been a major part of my admin time on Wikipedia for over a year now, and I found that document useful when I first started wading into them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll definitely have a look. It's an important issue, and I guess more people are needed to work on possible copyvios, considering that there's almost always something in the backlog. I'll read the document through to be sure I know how to do it right. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you know it! We've managed to keep the CP queue from being backlogged for about a year now (knock wood), but the image copyvios are off the charts. There are listings at WP:PUF going back to July 21st. WP:NFCR has listings from May (that page doesn't get much action anymore, though). I'm not on as solid grounds with images as I am text, so I tend to help out there mostly with clear-cut cases. Of course, those are also usually easily handled by the PUF regulars. :) As for text, just investigating multiple-article infringers could be a full-time job. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Darcourt

Since an IP editor has contested the deletion, I have restored the article for possible further discussion. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 9#Category:Ballet redirects

Hello. I'm looking to close this discussion but I have become slightly confused by your apparently changing rationale, going from "Delete" in the nom, to "[not] straightforward deletion per se, but (selective) merge into the corresponding subcategories of Category:Ballet" towards the end of the discussion. If you can clarify, if not straight deletion, exactly what you want merged, where, and why, this will be of great help to me in bringing this discussion to closure.

Thanks, Xdamrtalk 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

John Roberts/redirects

Hi there... Just a reminder that John Roberts/redirects was also nominated with the Taliban redirect that I nominated and you deleted. I don't know if you saw this one, or if you have yet to finish the process. Better safe than sorry, I suppose... (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goizueta Business School

Hi, since you decided to delete Goizueta Business School of Emory University Modular Executive MBA Program I should be grateful if you would pipe the red links at this AfD so that the page can be found. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Operational Quality of Release

You may have misread - I was seeking deletion as insufficient context, not content. The article is long, yes, but at no point can I work out what the blasted hell it is about. A3 (content) has a length proviso, A1 (context) which I used, does not. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#A1 doesn't say anything about length. Where is this written down? Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ack, must have missed it. I'll prod the thing instead. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD closings

I'm just explaining what I did here, which you might find useful in closing CfDs. A few months ago we had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:CFD in which some users requested that those who close CfDs remove the "collapsable" tables when the discussion is closed and archived. I can't even remember why they said this was preferrable--something about making it easier for those not in the know to find the discussions. Anyways, I've tried to remember to do this, though it's always easy to forget when you are closing a discussion. I try to remove them when I see them still there. I think you're doing a good job so far, by the way, and I wanted to thank you for helping out at CfD--more bodies have been sorely needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you?

Would you be willing to close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Rename? Debresser (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That includes the elaborate conclusion. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vatican in fiction etc

Map of Vatican City

Confusing to close, no doubt, but wasn't there consensus for the original rename, with at least 3 for (GO at the start at least), and no one really arguing against? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talkcontribs) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth (perhaps not much since I was involved), I would agree with Johnbod that they probably should be renamed. Most of those who voted "keep" were responding to the suggestion to "delete", and there was only "john k" who was against the rename. At the end, I was kind of neutral on whether to add the "City", but I think Johnbod has a reasonable position on how we usually treat these retroactive "state-did-not-exist-at-the-time" situations. I do apologise for the confusion of the discussion; it was primarily my fault. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    It was rather confusing, yes (especially since the order of the comments made is not obvious, you have to look at the timestamps). Anyway, didn't john k, Alansohn and Twiceuponatime all oppose the original rename proposal? Also, while the argument about the state not existing while some of the films were made was pretty well countered by the supporters of the move, it seems to me that the opposers still felt that the films were set in the geographical area and not the state per se. It's a pretty close call, however, and if you want I can ask another editor to read the discussion and re-close it if they think it was inappropriate. What do you say? Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be fine - I'm not actually that bothered on the matter at all, but having taken it as far as we have.... I did ignore John k's argument above, though obviously I do think it's against all precedent. As to the others, my recollection is that Vatican Palace+Vatican gardens+St Peter's including its Square = Vatican City=Vatican Hill (yes - map added above), so I'm not clear what any topographical distinction is. Except for St Peter's Sq, the whole thing is walled as a fortress btw. But I should have pointed that out at the time. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice map. I'm really not sure of the distinction either (our Vatican page seems to redirect to Vatican City). I've asked Xdamr (talk · contribs) for a second opinion on the closure. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! There's Apostolic Palace too - essentially nearly all the buildings above the church on the map. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've cast a second pair of eyes on the discussion. I would say that the closure is right in terms of keeping the categories. It takes a little doing, but once you navigate through the debate it is clear that the overwhelming consensus is for explicit retention - the delete case doesn't seem to have enough traction for pushing this to a no consensus, much less for deletion itself. So far so good.

The real issue is with the rename. On the pro-rename side we have one basic argument, the long-standing convention that sub-categories should take the form of their parents. On the oppose side we have john k and Alansohn (Twiceuponatime's oppose seemed to ignore the existence of other categories and so I discounted it from the outset). john k's argument against is based on a concern over anachronistic application. My judgement is that Johnbod's rebuttal is convincing enough to discount this. Alansohn seems to want to retain the categories as explicitly focused on the Vatican itself, rather than the Vatican City as a whole. This might have merit if we were talking about a country where that sort of distinction would matter (eg use of Category:Films set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania being far more useful than the broad Category:Films set in the United States). However the small scale of the Vatican, combined with the inability of the oppose side to draw a compelling distinction between the Vatican and Vatican City (both of which incidentally redirect to the same place) leads me to discount this argument. Having considered the arguments, a quick head count seems to indicate a majority who are not opposed to the rename (even if the idea didn't quite rouse the massed ranks of Wikipedians to the streets in support).

So, in essentials, my thoughts are that all should be renamed to the form 'Vatican City'. I'll leave the actual closure to you - if you didn't and still don't see the consensus there for a rename then that's fine, closing admin's prerogative. If you have been convinced otherwise then there's no problem with amending your closure after the fact. Ah, isn't Cfd fun? It's what gets me up in the mornings... (along with other trivial things like Real Life, etc)

Xdamrtalk 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I agree that's a reasonable assessment of the situation. I'll update my closure accordingly (I'm trying very hard not to put the words "or don't" in the rationale :P). This has to be the most confusing CfD discussion in a while, with the nom changes, mid-discussion population of the category, and changed closing rationale. I have a hard time believing that this "real life" you talk about could be anywhere near as fascinating. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to everyone. It's enough to convince me not to again change a nomination mid-stream. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rambo (film series)#Requested move

Hello! Perhaps you overlooked the part about these links being updated before the move was carried out. Instead, they've all been broken (as they now lead to the disambiguation page instead of the article). I assumed that we'd have a bot perform the task, but I suppose that I'll just start manually updating the links myself. If you could pitch in, that would be appreciated. —David Levy 17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've manually updated all of the articles (almost 200 of them). The handful of articles still listed contain transclusions of Template:Rambo (which I've also updated, though this is not reflected on the "what links here" page). It would have been nice if you'd allowed the task to be completed before performing the move (as requested in the discussion), as this would have enabled bot assistance, prevented the links from being broken for much of the day, and eliminated the need for me to spend the past three hours resolving the issue. So please pay closer attention in the future. Thank you! —David Levy 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to go through the work yourself. I performed the move and corrected the double redirects, but somehow missed fixing the actual article links that pointed to the disambiguation page. By the way, I don't think such a task could be performed by a bot, since I'm sure some of the links were not supposed to point to the film series page in the first place. (I know some of the redirects weren't!) I'll try to remember to fix links I've broken in the future when moving pages around. Thanks for your diligence and the input. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, some of the links were intended for John Rambo and other articles, so a bot would have maintained the status quo (without fixing the already incorrect links), ideally followed by editors manually checking the converted links to pick out the ones in need of further change.
Thank you!  :) —David Levy 11:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christian rock albums by artist

I just wanted to explain what I meant for the requested merge in my CFD for the Category:Christian rock albums by artist. While at the parent Category:Albums, there are subcategorizations by album, by genre, and by year, that convention is not followed further within genres. There is no Category:Rock albums by artist or Category:American albums by artist because these artist's categories are simply categorized under Category:American albums or Category:Rock albums or, if the joint category, Category:American rock albums. I just thought it ends being redundant and unnecessary as these categories could just as easily be placed under Category:Christian rock albums without losing any meaning or missing a beat. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Shopping centers by year of establishment

The subcategories were supposed to be renamed from centers->malls as well, per the discussion, but they weren't. Might wanna tell Cyde and his bot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

I noticed you are one of the regulars at wp:tfd. Would you care to comment on my ideas in Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Category? Debresser (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 5#Category:The Unforgettable Fire. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello again! I just noticed this edit, which I reverted. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#IntDabLk. Thanks! —David Levy 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing Cat discussions

I opened [this] 14 days ago and was wondering if it is ready to close, a week is about normal, I asked User_talk:Juliancolton and he directed me to you as you are experienced in closing them. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you are correct, it does look complicated and the comments have been varied... I can see why it has been left. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
This is for that fantastic job you did in the No Line on the Horizon peer review. It caught so many things that I would never have thought about, and the article looks much better as a result. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Western film...

You voted "Support rename" but it looks like you wanted "oppose rename" based on the text with it. You should fix it. Carlaude:Talk 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


I guess I deserve a rebuke for fly by DB nominations. Too bad. My bad. Thanks again. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Autonomous Region

Hi. Do you mind undoing this move? We can't have one editor undoing RM consensus two weeks after it's reached. - Biruitorul Talk 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but given that he's gone right back and moved it again, might it not be wise for you to move back to "Hungarian Autonomous Region" (with move protection this time) and, in case a discussion and/or new RM result in a new consensus to move back to "Magyar Autonomous Region", only then allow the move back there? I'm not against discussing with him, but move-warring tends to prevent logical debate from happening. - Biruitorul Talk 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second

I raised the idea at User_talk:Plastikspork#Tfd_protection to keep Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion apart from Category:Templates for discussion, like on Cfd. So don't change the category links. Didn't you notice I kept them when I changed the links? Debresser (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't break anything. I propose keeping them apart. That way we can easily find which templates are for deletion and which for merging. It's not a must, but unless the discussion will decide otherwise I think it serves a purpose. I'll change the edits you made to categories back for the mean time, ok? Debresser (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No need to propose that merge. It is obvious and will be taken care of. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have closed your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_14#Category:Templates_for_deletion_templates as withdrawn. :) No matter I helped you a little to withdraw, I hope. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Also pay attention to the new structure starting from Category:Pages for discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, I did mean that. I've correct the link on Lontech's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of access

Hello Jafeluv, per your request I have removed your sysop flag. Thanks for your work! Regards, LeinaD (t) 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I don't know what brought this on, but I'll miss you. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. We'll miss your good work. JamieS93 18:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


In which case I am requesting semi-protection on the page.--Launchballer 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)