User talk:Koavf/Archive006

User talk:Koavf archives

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

Archives
001 81 topics (2005-03-05 - 2006-03-07) 002 56 topics (2006-03-07 - 2006-08-08) 003 47 topics (2006-08-08 - 2006-09-14) 004 60 topics (2006-09-14 - 2007-06-05) 005 48 topics (2007-06-05 - 2007-08-21)

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

Chad, etc

Now since you might miss this, to clarify the Chad issue that you keep going on about (now I get the context).

The site is being hosted by a German IP, but the owner is Tchadian, mate. "Mahamat Hassane Outmane" Strange article, stranger yet you write about a subject requiring mastery of French and Arabic, but no matter. The article rather violently denies Tchad has recognised the Polisario republic. Regardless, that is the Prime Ministerial site for Tchad, so it would appear to be authoritative. Not that Tchad recognising or not means much. collounsbury 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Chadian He may even be Chadian, I don't know. All I know is that it isn't the government of Chad's site, or even registered under their top-level domain; it's just some .org site hosted out of the country; that's hardly credible to me. The subject does not require a mastery of French and Arabic, Collounsbury. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tchadian. I like to spell it that way kid. And it does indeed appear to be the Gov site, kid. Poor countries often have funky websites, because, well, they're fucking poor and don't have things all tied up like oh, Indiana. Of course fucking poor countries like Tchad. Actually knowing something about the region, knowing French and being able to read the site, and well, having a fucking clue, is often helpful. Now, because you know fuck all about what you're whanking on about, let me give you a little citation: http://ndjamena.usembassy.gov/ - If you look down your government's Embassy website, why surprise surprise you find they link to ... wait for, bit of a drumroll: http://www.presidencedutchad.org/ and http://www.primature-tchad.org/ as official sites. Now you can either hold that your US Embassy knows fuck all about the country it is located in or that as I state, poor countries often have funky little things about them, like being too fucking poor to have proper websites per Indiana standards. (collounsbury 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

So, now I think you get me comment about actually knowing what one is talking about, French, Arabic, mastery, not lapping up agitprop, that sort of thing.

By Chad's a crappy little wasteland, so recog one way or the other really isn't that important, but your habit of uncritically parroting a certain POV without the slightest critical thought is rather tedious. (collounsbury 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Kid, agitprop (bloody?) Spell it "Tchadian;" I don't care. Yes, knowing French and Arabic are helpful. Yes, they are critical when reading a source in either language. No, they are not necessary for having a grasp on the Western Sahara conflict. Whether or not they are the official sites of Chad, I don't know. I also never claimed to know. I never said they weren't, Colin. All I ever said was that they were not apparently the sites of the governmentAdd: and that they weren't the site of the government per se, I don't know what a single agency may say or not say; some might even contradict one another, especially in a backwards place like Chad. Personally, I find you being a constant jackass pretty tedious as well. You could act like a normal human being and get across your point; it would actually be more effective and waste less time. For some reason, you choose to eschew that course of action. So, instead, we get to deal with pissy Collounsbury who curses and throws around childish insults. Also, the self-contradictory act that you have whereby you say "X is so foolish and unimportant" while at the same time writing on and on about X, getting worked up and petulant about it, and pretending to take some kind of moral high ground is a pretty cheap tactic that is tedious as well. Do you kiss your mom with that mouth? I sincerely hope not. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For the languages my little Indiananista, in order to understand reality, and not be suckered into blindly lapping up agitprop like a poodle. Helps to know something, but leaving that aside my dim little git, the said sites are indeed the sites used by the governmentindeed, it is the site of the fucking Prime Ministry, you know, the policy making part of the government. One runs into that sort of thing a lot in the region, my dear little Middle American. Your tedious argument from ignorance (or perhaps tedious hair splitting whanking, hard to tell the difference with you) notwithstanding. No wonder you got blocked. (collounsbury 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Cute It seems you can't read English. I'm not getting into this with you. You can talk like an adult and we can have a conversation, or you can act like an ass. Not both. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Read English perfectly well, kid, and leaving aside your little martyr act, you've been making the argument the site is not reliable, blah blah blah (and I saw your edits e.g. to the legal status West. Sahara kerfuffle with Tchad...). There's no basis. Stop whinging on, your fine little agitprop game doesn't work all the time. (collounsbury 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Cuter Okay, so you've chosen ass. If you want to change your mind, please do. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No more hard talk guys. Collounsbury, please calm down and don't forget WP:CIV. Koavf, you should find a clear answer to your question at WP:V. He said it is on one of the US Department of State's websites (US Embassy in Tchad). With another additional simple effort you could have translated the page using an online translator. I've got this in English. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

I put the same message on User talk:Wikima. Please find someone to mediate, these reverts are really annoying. --Gribeco 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(My bad; I used the wrong article name. Sorry. --Gribeco 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

The Saoshyant article

I've noticed that you put an unreferenced banner there. Why? If you think it should have references, why didn't you go ahead and look for them, instead? And if you do not have the time, it would make more sense to actuallly point out which are the parts in the article that you believe to need references.

Just putting up unreference banners on articles does not help Wikipedia. I hope you understand my concern.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of J.A. Adande Lounge

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on J.A. Adande Lounge, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because J.A. Adande Lounge is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting J.A. Adande Lounge, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinoamerican relations

I don't find the re-direct to be so implausable to require a speedy delete, feel free to take it to WP:RFD. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Japan-People's Republic of China relations

hello :), I found You've reverted the page name Japan-People's Republic of China relations into People's Republic of China-Japan relations. and you told the "conformity". what is the conformity that you think?

I think the ordering of "People's Republic of China" and "Japan" is strange. with the following reasons.
1. the long word should not be the first. (at least I learned so, if I arrange some words without alphabetical ordering)
2. both names are written in fullname. in Official, Japan is Japan.
3. the alphabetical ordering is Japan and People's Republic of China. (I think this doesn't violate the NPOV in Wikipedia)

I gathered the practices of the common rule in the Internet. "Australia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Mexico, People's Republic of China, Russia and Urkaine" "brazil mexico people's republic of china and russia" "Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia, Mexico, People's Republic of China, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia" the name of "People's Republic of China" can be ordered in the 'P' section of the country lists. I think your "conformity" doesnt meet the common rule.

and I searched the sample of ordering at your University: the Indiana University further[1]. "Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, the People's Republic of China, Russia, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey" People's Republic of China is also in the P section. Does "People's Republic of China" show before Japan? no... Can I revert People's Republic of China-Japan relations into Japan-People's Republic of China relations?

And I suggest that France-People's Republic of China relations, Germany-People's Republic of China relations, ... should be accepted. I don't like the revert-war. so... give me a comment? :) --Boldlyman 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about your renaming of bilateral-relations articles. (I came to this from the Greco-Turkish relations one, which is on my watchlist but I missed your edit at first.) This naming convention you applied seems linguistically dubious to me. Okay, I'm not a native speaker of English, but to my mind it sounds quite distinctly unidiomatic, if not downright ungrammatical. You can have "Adj-Adj relations", or "Compound-Adj relations", or "relations between N and N", but not "N-N relations". Was this renaming discussed anywhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me about this. Can you point me to those discussions on Village Pump or RfC? I don't think I agree with you, but I'd want to review what others have said first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking a bit further, I now found Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Problems with naming a series of articles. If that's all, that's indeed not much consensus to go on. (BTW, I wrote this while you were writing your last - if there's older discussions I haven't found them yet.) Just a few points from me:

1. First of all, I'd question your premise that uniformity across this "series" is a high-priority goal. For me, it just isn't. It's far more important to have a title that "sounds right" in each individual case, than to have them all follow the same pattern. Some countries or pairs of countries have conventionally entrenched usage preferences different from others in real language - for instance, some have those Latinate compounds ("Sino-", "Franco-" etc.) while for other countries these are simply not available. The non-availability of the compounds in other cases is no a priori reason not to use them where they exist.
2. Whatever you do, please please don't do those "N-N relations" compounds. I can't help it, they grate in my ears, and I'm pretty convinced they are simply not English. Google shows they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the other options in actual use; they are in fact so rare in natural language as to count as practically non-existant. English just doesn't do compounds with country names. With very few exceptions involving individual countries (mostly those that have acronym names): you can have "US policies", a "US government" or "US laws", but you cannot have "*France policies", a "*Germany government" or "*Italy laws". It's "French policies", "German government", "Italian laws". "Adj N". The compounds are very clearly ungrammatical here. And to my ears the double compounds you've been using are no better.
3. I'm considering reverting your moves on those articles I care about. In any case, I'd ask you to refrain from further moves of that type, and definitely from filing any more "requested moves" of that type under "uncontentious cases". Please just consider every such move a controversial case from now on.

Best, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Indeed, I certainly agree a certain amount of unification may do some good -- but we shouldn't strive to achieve total uniformity beyond the variation that exists in the real world. It's a fact of politics that some country names need disambiguation, others don't. And it's a fact of the English language that some country names are syntactically different from others. If our articles come up with different naming solutions to reflect these differences, then this is by no means "capricious and unpredictable"; to the contrary, it reflects our good Wikipedian naming tradition, which states that articles should have the simplest name in common English that fulfills its purpose in each individual case, valuing local simplicity and elegance over global uniformity.

So, in this spirit, my preferred solution would be:

1. Use the adjectival "Xian-Yian relations" format wherever this is feasible politically and linguistically
2. Optionally, use the Latinate "Xo-Yian relations" format, in cases where such an expression is demonstrably common and generally preferred
3. In all other cases, use a circumlocution such as "Relations between X and Y"

I'm not too attached to #2, so if people want to get rid of these I wouldn't have big objections. In the worst case, I could also live with applying #3 throughout. What I still strongly object to is the plain "X-Y relations" format, at least for most cases involving linguistically simple canonical country names, where adjectives would be available instead ("Germany"-"German"; "India"-"Indian"; etc.) Because I still just can't bring myself to recognising these as grammatical English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PRC-relations renaming

Hey, why do you keep mass moving the titles without discussion if you already know there are onjections? El_C 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I really am quite disheartened to see that you've applied this superimposed-neutrality over conventional historical terminology to many tens of bilateral-relations entries. It will take me hours to fix this undiscussed damage. Why don't you use centralized discussion or something where other people can express an opinion? This is a collaborative project (!). You already knew there were objections, at least with respect to some of these, yet you did not employ the talk page or requested moves. Where did you discuss this mass renaming? El_C 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And not once, it seems, did you bother to change the lead sentence to account for the renaming. Again, I'm wondering why it has to be so massive, so rapid, without any discussion?. That's really not how we do things around here. El_C 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across so aggressively, and I'm sorry if you found my undoing of your work un-nerving (at the event, I'll stop for now — but note that anything done on the wiki can be undone, or re-done). Again, I reiterate that, in my opinion, Wikipedia should echo the scholarship in its terminology. I think that many of the renamings should be returned back to the status-quo, at least until after some discussion, which is what I suggested on the Admin noticeboard. Thx. El_C 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Beatles songs

List of Beatles songs, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Beatles songs satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beatles songs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Beatles songs during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spellcast 09:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beatles songs, I'd appreciate your input at the talk page. --Tikiwont 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

What I can tell, the above article is not a redirect. I am not sure what the hell is going on but this edit war really should stop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 72 hours for violating the terms of your 1RR parole on Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Koavf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was placed on a "standard revert parole" and the reverts I was doing (diff URLs can't be displayed in template; see below) were unblanking of pages. According to WP:3RR, this is expressly excluded from the 3RR rule: "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. Wikima was deleting the content of the page and inserting a non-sequitur redirect without consensus or discussion. I simply reverted his deletions and did not change the content of the page. Blanking is defined on WP:VAN as "removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus..." Clearly, this is the case, and my reverts are exempt from any kind of block. Furthermore, rather than blind reverts to the content of pages (other than vandalism and non-sequiturs thrown into pages), I have been posting on Talk concomitant with reversion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Turning a page into a redirect is not the same as page blanking. It is also a far cry from vandalism. This logic smells of WikiLawyering and is not helping your cause at all. Instead it harkens back to the disruptive editing style that has led you to having the longest block log I've ever seen. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Diff 1

Diff 2

For the record, vandalism is very narrowly defined, both in terms of policy and general community culture. When terms like "simple and obvious vandalism" are used, they refer more to specific sorts of incidents -- if a throwaway account comes in and replaces a page with a giant penis, that's simple and obvious; if an experienced user (even an experienced user you may not agree with) blanks a page and provides a rationale, even if you think this is done in bad faith, this is not necessarily vandalism. There's a key difference between "I disagree with this, and think it's bad" and "this action is clearly and unambiguously undertaken to damage Wikipedia, and there is no alternative interpretation." If an action can be interpreted in any way other than vandalism, it's not safe to assume you'll be immune to 3RR -- this advice is doubly true for somebody currently under revert parole. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Granted I would hope that someone would not throw around charges of vandalism lightly. On the other hand, I would also hope that users would not be blocked for capricious reasons. What that other editor was doing was blanking by the definition I used above, taken verbatim from a WP page, and that was my sole motivation for the revert. Had the user wanted to refer to talk to make a case or was there some kind of consensus to delete this information, that would be a different story. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are on 1RR parole, but the arbcom ruling says that is for "content reverts," and I don't know exactly what that means but I'm inclined to think that the unilateral redirection you were reverting was not a "content revert." I don't think it's right to call it a vandalism revert, but you only undid it twice, not four times. I do concur that the edit you undid was effectively blanking the page, since it was redirecting it to a page on a related topic that doesn't cover the coat of arms at all. So I might support an unblock, if other admins agree with my interpretation. Mangojuice^talk 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

" ... but you only undid it twice, not four times.". Well, I guess 1RR revert parole applies exactly to more than one revert in 24h, which koavf broke. So, that is a reason to keep the block not to undo it. The edit he undid twice was not blanking the page, but redirecting to another related topic, because, as Luna Santin made it clear above, that is what another editor thinks, though you might disagree with him about it.--A Jalil 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are two things that koavf has difficulties to understand:

1. First thing: Western Sahara is not the Sahrawi Republic. Western Sahara is a territory which is currently widely under control of Morocco, the conflict about it is not resolved yet and until that time it can't be considered like a state or a country, but as what it is: a territory.
2. Second thing: Wikipedia is no place for propaganda and militantism. Koavf's POV is exactly the same as Polisario's one and every thing he does with relation to Western Sahara complies 100% with the ideology of this organisation. A dangerous thing for Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has already suffered much from political abuse.

• These two things koavf must understand. Until then he will keep on reverting and vandalising blindly. His action has brought much tension and discouraged people from editing.
• Koavf has an impressive record of blocks. He had been blocked on indefinite after a number of temp. blocks. And, after he has been unblocked (a bad decision really) he is simply ignoring every thing and showing that he has learned nothing. He is continuing his blind and systematic reverts as if nothing has happened.
• If you unblock him you only will encourage impunity
• If there are rules they must be applied otherwise just let evryone do anarchy in this place.

Thanks - wikima 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but what about this coat of arms? There are articles about coats of arms and flags: do you dispute that the coat of arms even exists? Do you dispute that it is notable? Or are you disputing the neutrality or accuracy of what was written there? By redirecting the coat of arms page to Legal status of Western Sahara, where the coat of arms is not discussed at all, you basically removed the topic completely. If that is your aim, I would suggest you start an AfD debate. I also would like to point out that those reverts happened while the page was temporarily moved to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, a move performed by Anthony Appleyard and undone by Juiced Lemon (A. Jalil seemingly tried to undo it, but did not): Koavf was not involved in that. I don't see his reverts as pushing the pro-Western Sahara viewpoint; maybe the page move did that, but rather his reverts in this case were undoing an edit that completely removed coverage of this topic. That's why I say I don't think this was a "content revert." Mangojuice^talk 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Mangojuice, I am not against articles on coats of arms as such, that would be absurd. I am against using Western Sahara as a subsitute for the "Sahrawi Republic". This is where the bug lies and this goes across all topics related to the Western Sahara conflict where koavf is involved (with his systematic reverts).
• Western Sahara is, again, 1) a disputed territroy and 2) under Moroccan administration. It has as such no national coat of arms (a part may be from the one of the power that administrates it). To have an article showing the coat of arms of the "Sahrawi Republic" on the disputed Western Sahara territory is nothing but using wikipedia for Polisario political interests!
• The "Sahrawi Republic", which is nothing but a governement in exile, has one however. It can appear on its page, I have no problem with it.
• Result: None - as far as I am aware of - is wanting to delete "Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". It should only not be same as "Coat of arms of Western Sahara"
• I don't know whether this is clear or not, otherwise happy to discuss every detail.
• The problem we are having with koavf is that he is a fervent militant of the "Sahrawi Republic" and wants absolutely to have Western Sahara be a subtitute for this republic ín Wikipedia.
• And he is editwarring everyone who thinks differently, even when this costs him to be blocked on indefinite, and again and again.
• Only a strong admin can stop him. The best solution would be to ban him from editing the topic as had been suggested once already.
• Unfortunately he is unblocked every time by admins who want to show good will, although he does not care and just ignore them once they have unblocked him.
• We are having this situation not for the first time now and this is really exhausting!

Kind regards - wikima 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, could someone please revert this? I would myself, but...

I did that revert for you - wikima 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't agree with unblocking here. Vandalism is very simple - bad-faith editing. There was nothing bad-faith about wikima's actions therefore they do not constitute vandalism, therefore Koavf's edits were reverts. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When I was reviewing Koavf's edits, I did not even think for a second that he was reverting vandalism. I saw the edits he was reverting, and I did not think it was a case of simple and clear vandalism removal. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside Let me take this moment to point out the ridiculous trolling of some editors toward others and state that I have provided evidence for how another editor has vandalized articles (apparently, some of you reject that argument, although I don't see why); whereas my accusers have provided no evidence and gone on tangential monologues on my talk page, in addition to the blind reverts they themselves have made to my work. I am requesting that admins review the content of these two diffs (again, reverting page blanking, which is clearly defined as vandalism); not some invitation for diatribes about how awful I am or what is or is not in the contents of my mind. If some admins could please respond to the {{unblock}} notice and its rationale, I would appreciate that. In particular, see the back-and-forth with Mangojuice above. This is a small part of a long history that is supposed to be resolved with several other admins, who through apparent negligence and personal misfortune have not been able to resolve these long-standing disputes and foolishness. For those of you genuinely interested in the content of that dispute, I would be happy to discuss the errors, invalid logic, and outright lies propagated by my opponents, but that is not the point - the point is resolving the unblock request made above rather than trolling and bringing up every personal vendetta that one may have against another. Furthermore, thanks for the other vandalism reversion which I myself would have done had I not been banned. Nishkid, how was I not reverting vandalism? Is this not an example of page blanking? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've answered this in the unblock denial above. You really need to stop. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Stop what exactly? While I admit that turning a page into a redirect is not per se vandalism, that is also not all that was happening, and I think that's pretty obvious. The page's contents were deleted for political reasons and it was redirected to a page which itself has been mutilated, unilaterally moved, and is in a long process of mediation (see Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara), which is to say nothing of the fact that the page to which it redirects does not give the user the information he wants and breaks its use in all other pages that link to it. No one is claiming that redirects are equivalent to vandalism, but redirects as such are. Moreover, if you're willing to step in to actually put a stop to the trolling and edit-warring, that would be a welcome and appreciated effort. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum As to your charge of Wikilawyering, I expressly mentioned how I post on talk in order to show my good faith about trying to reach consensus. I am also the one that initiated mediation to try to overcome edit-warring in the first place; I was and am trying to 1.) put a stop to foolishness (e.g. mass deletions for political reasons) and 2.) petty sniping. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say, I'm not going to dispute the review of the block. All the rest aside, I am pretty clear that this was not a dispute where it was good to be descrbing the edit you were undoing as vandalism, which you did. I think the edit you undid was over-the-top, has not been justified or explained by Wikima, and was likely to inflame a situation that already seems tense. So I don't blame you at all for wanting to undo it. Nonetheless, you have a block history a mile long, and you were reverting something other than simple vandalism, when over-reverting has been your problem repeatedly in the past. Next time, instead of reverting a second time, regardless of what your reason is, find another way: start with discussion with the other user, or with other editors on the talk page. If that doesn't work, there is always WP:ANI and WP:AIV if the dispute requires admin attention, and there are other ways to get outside input too. Try to remember, there is no rush because there is no deadline, so it's really not so bad to let an edit you disagree with stick for a little while. Mangojuice^talk 03:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure Points taken and appreciated. Do you have the time and energy to assist in wading through all of this? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Mangojuice, if you want to look into this you will need more time than just to check the previous edit before the last one
• User koavf brings in a culture of tension, of conflicts and of radical in edit warring
• I am not going to write a book about it and I am not going to copy past tones of links and archives. Things are much easier:
• When he was away during he indefinite block, there was no tension in the topics, no edit wars or at least no significant ones. In relation to the conflict and its nature (unresolved) there was peace.
• As soon as koavf was unblocked and came back the whole situation has become just like in the beginning.
• No doubt: Source of the tension and conflict => koavf
• The other source of the tension lies in the fact that he, togther with Arre have made Western Sahara to be confused with the so-called "sahrawi republic" in all the topics related to the WS conflict.
• Now that there is more and more consensus towards dissolving this confusion he is reacting agressively with blind reverts.

Thanks & regards - wikima 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proof in point More trolling. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'proof' seems to be rather against you kid. Wikima's mulishness with respect to his point of view hardly does him credit, but your yelping on about trolling is absurd. Indeed it looks exactly like the tactic you used and are being rebuked for, calling editorial differences vandalism. Indeed Mango's points seem not at all taken or understood, although you have apparently learned to parrot better. Difference in POV - both of you, wikima and you, have rather hard stuck POV; you however take mulish insistence on your own POV with a special kind of aggressive editing to new heights (ergo the block log and edit warring history characterised as, what longest ever seen?).

As for the situation on the Western Sahara pages, frankly I find your aggressive mulishness and positively irrational insistance on your POV approach impossible to find reasonable compromise with. While your Moroccan POV adversaries hardly cover themselves in glory in terms of writing from a non-POV approach, when you're not around to inflame things, I rather found them less aggrieved and more willing to compromise. Well, I can count on some childish and bolded yelp from you, this note is more for the other observers. (collounsbury 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

• Col, some of your saying shows how difficult it is for you and many to understand the situation.
• When someone tries to dissolve Western Sahara from the so-called sahrawi republic or to present the topic from other sides than "polisario are glorious fighters" and "Morocco a simple colonial power", this appears to you as pro-Moroccan POV.
• But I don't blame anyone as there is a reason behind this. So, why is it like this?
• The reason is simple and you only need to check the topics and their history: during a long time koavf and Arre, both fervent pro-polisario militants have been misusing wikipedia with an impressive perseverance to propage polisario's ideology.
• Both have created a number of pages related to the Western Sahara conflict reflecting 100% the POV of polisario and suggesting Western Sahara is a country that seeks independence, that the "sahrawi republic" is a sovereign state etc., and refuting in their edits any thing that could show any positive or event neutral relation between Morocco and Western Sahara.
• Even after a huge effort to clean, things still look like they did with their propaganda. And the very topic here is a proof for I am saying:
• For koav indeed the flag of the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" cannot be different from the flag of Western Sahara, although it is now a well established fact that Western Sahara is the disputed territory under Moroccan administration while the so-called "sadr" an entity which claims its indepedence, so two different things.
• And this is how it goes through all topics not only here.
• Koavf and Arre, are both radical and fundamentalists in their POV and their way. While koavf still tries to fight in a religious almost irrational way to keep the Polisario POV everywhere, Arre has shown that he is unable for compromise and simply left.
• Now - and I am repeating myself - any admin who wants to resolve the conflict with these people can't succeed if he does not understand the above and get to the roots of this situation.
• There is a way however to get out of this situation:

1. Get koavf baned from all topics related to Morocco and Western Sahara as had been suggested before his indefinite block.
2. Set-up a project dissolve Western from the "sahrawi republic" in the used language.

• I don't see an alternative to this, a part from the current unacceptable situation.

Thanks - wikima 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First, our response underlines precisely a core part of the problem - neither you nor the Indianian kid seem capable of admitting other points of view. Arre I found quite open to reason when real compromises were presented. (And yes, you have been open to compromise). Koavf, however, has never been and either goes silent and then returns to revert to his narrow POV or directly edit wars. Your lumping both into one pot underscores the problem. Arre's leaving strikes me not lacking an ability to compromise but rather tiring of the edit warring over trivialities. Your lumping the two together speaks to your unreasonableness, not his.

Leaving aside your accusations, Koavf is indeed unreasonable. The issue of the flag is not a bad example. The two flag in usage presentation on Western Sahara (although bloody hell this is a triviality) seemed fine to me, although the phrasing of that version need(ed/s) editing as it has a Moroccan slant.

Your agenda to "dissolve" (I presume disassociate) W. Sahara as a territory from Saharwi Republic has some merit, however I find your edits tend to mnimizing the very existence of the Polisario faction and its activities. Were this merely in response to Koavf and his jihad that would be perhaps forgivable, but it hardly seems to only be in his case. (Hint, constantly throwing in the "So Called SADR" phrase is about as NPOV as Koavf's Sahrawi blah blah promotion and just about as credible. SADR exists, it's not "so called" although it certainly is a shadow entity of the Polisario front - give it a rest.).

(collounsbury 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

• Thanks for your point of view. I have said mine which is based on long time "co-editing" with both (Arre as well).
• The "so-called sadr" is a neutral expression that goes exactly along the position of the UN. And you'll find it in reports that insist on being objective. The "sadr" only exists for those who believe in it and recognise it against the Moroccan position. A neutral position never can recognise it as it would mean to take a position in the conflict.
• I don't however say the "so-called polisario" or write "polisario" in quotation, although in my personal POV I have a different opinion. If you were attentive you would have seen that.
• Here we get back to exactly what I am saying above: One must deal with the "sadr" almost as a real and existing sovereign state otherwise one is a mulish unreasonnable Moroccan POV pusher in this wikipedia. A bizarre situation, far from facts and reality.
• To your last point, yes, I was meaning to disassociate Western Sahara from this entity. It is more than necessary. We should correct all the mis-edits introduced by the tandem koavf-Arre and present Western Sahara as it is: a disputed territory under Moroccan administration as its southern provinces. This is the fact and the reality. The rest is pro-polisario fiction that must be removed.

Thanks - wikima 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And to illustrate why you're not much better than Koavf: The "so-called sadr" is a neutral expression that goes exactly along the position of the UN. And you'll find it in reports that insist on being objective. The "sadr" only exists for those who believe in it and recognise it against the Moroccan position. A neutral position never can recognise it as it would mean to take a position in the conflict.: The statement of a Moroccan partisan, and a rather blind one. However, as you're about as close minded as the Indianian, there's not much point in discussion. (collounsbury 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

• What I say stands.
• If you have a rational counter-argument I am more than interested.
• If not give me a break with your personal attacks and arrogant replies.

Thanks - wikima 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

During your block

The copy and paste issue was solved by me. I took the initiative to write an article from scratch, keeping only the infobox and the interwiki links from all previous articles. All of the other offending versions have been deleted in accordance to Wikipedia policy. So, whatever issues you have with a cut or paste move, it has now been fixed. I have been adding some more material to the article, so it sounds less like a debate over the entire WS/SADR issue, but more about the actual flag itself. I intend to use that article to just cover the flag; nothing more, nothing less. I am not sure if this is the same approach we wish to take on the Coat of arms article, but that is something we can hash out later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay That is in some ways better, but does not resolve the fundamental issue of moving without (in point of fact, in contradiction to) consensus (as well as admin intervention.) I'm glad that you're trying to avoid politicized asides in the text, though. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vegan wine and Template:Wines

Howdy, I saw your recent addition to the Wine Template of Vegan wines. I have an idea on a different way of including it in the template and would like to get your opinion on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vegan_wine.2C_Organic_wine.2C_Natural_wine_and_Kosher_wine. Thanks! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hello! Could you please tell me where did you take the figures from for the article United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara? If there is a website you took them from, please write it at the reference section, so that it would be easier for others to update the page. Thank you! --Andronicus92 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MINURSO page Some MINURSO page. I honestly don't recall... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations

Did you have any particular reason for doing the move? I prefer the previous title. The only reason I can see for a move is some might see the previous title as "pro-Palestine/Palestinian." I don't and feel the current one is clumsier. Emmanuelm, who redid most of the article to replace the old 'Israel and the UN' is certainly "pro-Israel" and came up with the "Israel, Palestine and the UN" title. It would be appreciated if you could explain in talk, if you think it should not be moved back. Cheers,John Z 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(paste from Talk:Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations): Koavf, you moved this page despite a majority of opinions against it. As I said before, I am against a split. I am also against a title that suggests that Israelis can have a state, not Palestinians. If you want to be NPOV to the extreme, consider The Middle East and the United Nations. As for the length, Cancer is 90Kb, George W. Bush is 108Kb, and they are less controversial than Palestine. If the article must nevertheless be shortened, the Historical Overview could be removed since it is covered in other articles. I therefore see no need to split the article. Please undo your page move. I will not play the revert game with you; someone else can take that fight. Emmanuelm 12:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Zanzibar in Africa in topic template

Hello there Koavf, Why do you believe that Zanzibar should not have a separate in topic template? It was once an independent country and even today has its own politicians and unique history. Thoughts?--Thomas.macmillan 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, None of those places you mentioned were independent countries recognized by the United Nations (and neither is the Western Sahara, for that matter). I believe this is a major distinction.--Thomas.macmillan 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While other African states have achieved statehood, I cannot think of any that were formally recognized and admitted to the United Nations. Likewise, Zanzibar also has its own autonomous government, including a president and parliament. Puntland, which you seem to take no offense with, "considers itself as an autonomous state within Somalia". I see little difference between Puntland and Zanzibar in terms of political status and need to include them on the template.--Thomas.macmillan 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Palestinian state

Template:Palestinian state has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tarc 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[2]

Hello. I have a question about this article, Shouldn't it be called "Polish law" instead of "Law of Poland" ? I think former is more accurate (at least in British English). Lothar25 22:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Conventions Naming conventions are to use the form "X of [Country]" rather than "[Adjective] X]" (e.g. Demographics of Canada, not Canadian demographics.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks :). BTW You can answer on person's discussion's page User_talk:Lothar25 - then he's notified about new message. Lothar25 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I have brought up the disruptive editing of you, Wikima, and A Jalil here. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spiders and Georgia

Thanks for dabbing those - I'd got pretty much all the other mainspace "Georgia" links, but wasn't sure enough to deal with those. Much appreciated!. DuncanHill 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions?

Per what section of Naming Conventions do you get that every article using a person's initials needs to be moved? Under standard english, and often in the writings and self-identification of these actors, actresses, musicians, etc., they self-identify without the spaces, and should be considered experts about their names. Please clarify. ThuranX 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure It's here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct link is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names - abbreviations of names.

Second, as you can see, this has been marked as disputed. It has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Compulsory dotting and spacing of name initials and, more widely, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Periods and acronyms dispute. In light of these discussions, which indicate that the guideline is under debate and may change very shortly, it may be unwise to continue making mass changes at the moment. 81.106.229.118 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks This has been brought up before and the consensus was always to leave it as it was; I see no reason for it to change this time. I've put in my two cents. If anything drastic happened, pages can always be moved back again, anyway. In the meantime, no reason to have articles with arbitrary and silly names. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacing redirects

You know, not that it bothers me or anything, but replacing redirects is kind of a waste of energy. At least according to the redirects guideline, just thought you might like to know for to continue on with more fruitful efforts. IvoShandor 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Reagan sites are on my watchlist, I created a few of the articles, and Reagan is a vandalism attractant. Like I said, not a big deal to me, onward ho! Happy editing. IvoShandor 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Worse, I had to actually create a redirect as the easy fix to a replacement you did today, when you changed JC Raulston Arboretum to the then-nonexistent J.C. Raulston Arboretum. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry I apologize for that, and I'm grateful that you cleaned up the mess. That was one of the few that gave me problems. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Junpei Shibayama

As the initials stand for his first name, not two different names, there should not be a space. Please update your bot to undo your recent edits to this effect, thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh I don't know if there is a naming convention for the example you gave... What makes you think there shouldn't be a space? Also, I do not have a bot. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, it doesn't make sense to add a space when there wasn't a space in the spelled out name. Second off, J.P., no space, was the convention for the series. I'm trying to find a pic now.

Found it: [3]. No space. Please revert all of those edits, thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Granted You can find references to "J.E.B. Stuart" as well as "J. E. B. Stuart," but that is irrespective of the naming conventions. Are you sure the character's name is deliberately "J.P." rather than "J. P."? If so, I don't mind changing it back. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as J. E. B. Stuart is four separate names, and J.P. is not only one, but named as such by the designers of his character, I would tend to go with the no-space for his name. It's the same thing as T.K. - its initials for his first name only, and so there is no space.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Again, I don't have any evidence to contradict you per se, but I don't see how that is relevant to the naming conventions. I don't know that this exact circumstance is even addressed. You may want to post on the talk there to see what others think. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clearer - having a space between J. E. B. makes sense because there are spaces there in the original name. The convention with one name turned into two initials is that there is no space. This is made clear on both characters treated like this in the Digimon franchise - Takeru is T.K., Junpei is J.P. This is how the official merchandise and dubbers spelled it - having a space is not only illogical, but OR. Please, reverse these changes.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearer still "The convention with one name turned into two initials is that there is no space." Show me where this is written. If this is, in fact, a convention, I will happily revert the changes. If not, then you have no case. All I've got to go on is the similar cases that I've mentioned above. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...I already have. And since it looks like the same changes have been made for T. K. (I don't know if you made them or not).

Here's an even better one, since I'm having trouble finding the card scan: go to [4], click on "Digibaby Boom", and skip to the credits. Or go to "And so it begins", and wait for T.K.'s name to be displayed at 1:11. It has no space, and that is how his name is officially spelled. J.P.'s name is done the same.

If you can give an example where one name is officially initialed with a space between them, then fine. But all sources show that there should be no space between the two initials for both characters. Please revert these edits.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Already have? Where in the Wikipedia naming conventions or guidelines does it say "with one name turned into two initials is that there is no space?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the initialling conventions are, but I do know there is WP:V, and WP:NOR. Which would indicate that the characters are named whatever the authors named them, not what we decide they are named. If you give me some time, I'll try to look up the initialling conventions. But by the most basic of Wikipedia principles, the names are spelled with no space between the initials.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure I agree that if the characters were deliberately named "J.P" and "T.K" they should be left at those names. I have no idea why you think "by the most basic of Wikipedia principles, the names are spelled with no space between the initials," as I've just shown you an actual naming convention that would imply the opposite. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "correcting" what the characters are officially named, as you were trying to do earlier, would count as OR and neglecting the verifiable source. As for the "actual naming convention" - Form what I've seen on Acronym and initialism, all signs point to no space for any reason, and the "J. E. B." situation, if it is even correct according to the Wiki guidelines, would not apply to this situation, as it is derived from a multi-word name.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The closest I've found so far is this:

When a multiple-letter abbreviation is formed from a single word, periods are generally proscribed, although they may be common in informal, personal usage. TV, for example, may stand for a single word (television or transvestite, for instance), and is generally spelled without punctuation (except in the plural). Although PS stands for the single word postscript (or the Latin postscriptum), it is often spelled with periods (P.S.). (Wikiquote abbreviates television as T.V.) The slash (aka virgule) (/) is often used to show the ellipsis of letters in the initialism N/A (not applicable, not available).

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay That makes a stronger case; have you talked to anyone at the naming conventions pages? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where these pages are, and I really see no need - the official spellings of J.P. and T.K. agree with what is on those pages - no space. Even if the conventions were found to disagree, the fact remains that J.P. and T.K. are the official spellings, and are used in all official (English) merchandise and material.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Sander Kleinenberg/Art of Silence

Why the de-link of Art of Silence in the article Sander Kleinenberg? Thanks. Wickethewok 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly mistake I suppose I should have linked to the redirect (J. J. Jeczalik) instead. Good question. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. Thought it might have been an issue of a different musical artist with the same moniker or something like that. Thanks! Wickethewok 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

So you know where I can find userboxes anywhere? Kaktibhar 00:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

O.J. Mayo

Add Mayo to the list of folks who are on record for spelling their initialized name with no space. Otherwise, good luck with the moves. I hope they stick this time. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Already reverted 'em. It is in all of the media used as sourcing in the article. I'll use of couple of them as refs for said spacing. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have too many pages on my watchlist these days, so I tend to be on top of things with the few with which I can bother to bother. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism AWB - wacky edit

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tubby Smith, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --rogerd 01:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that from your history, vandalism is definitely not something you do, sorry. You might want to check out other edits you have made with AWB to make sure it isn't malfunctioning. --rogerd 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

M. T. Haryono

Hi there. I see you orphan tagged this page. While there are not many articles that do link to it, two that do (30 September Movement and List of National Heroes of Indonesia) are significant articles. I see you've had a look at the first of these, so you are aware of his rather unfortunate demise. His inclusion as on the List of National Heroes of Indonesia page, and the two categories that the article is a member of make me feel that the orphan tag is not appropriate. I will not remove the tag pending your thoughts and perhaps further discussion on the article's talk page as this has implications for other articles. Regards. Davidelit 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay The only thing that makes a page an orphan is how many pages link to it, not some kind of relative importance of the articles' content. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia‎"

Koavf, I am aware of our conventions, but the title of the work in question happens to be J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia‎. I suppose there is room for debate, but you should debate first and do summary changes after. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure Well, I agree with that in principle, but as you admit your ignorance of the naming standards, if this article did, in fact break them, it's entirely reasonable to move it without discussion. I did not even move it this time around, and posted it to WP:RM under the "uncontroversial moves" section, actually. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB edits to D. H. Morgan Manufacturing roller coasters

Hi there, I'm pretty sure it was unintentional but your AWB edits actually introduced errors into articles which were already fine. I use AWB too and know how easy it is to overlook things, but can you just make sure you check else it creates more work. Many thanks, Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed what you were trying to do - have fixed them all for you. :) Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB errors?

Hi there, was just a simple find and replace error, no biggy! Seaserpent⁸⁵ 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you there?

Hi Justin. I see you have been off since your last comment at the ANI. We don't want to block anyone. We just need balanced articles. But when we fail (tons of times) reaching that objective while keeping it noisy, admins can only take it seriously and block. The community can ban as well. You have been given another chance so take it. Think consensus and stop thinking "you're right". Like i said to Jalil and to wikima in a while i'd like to get from you ideas on how to work on that. Or you can still name a few areas using a list of a few lines. Please reply via talk page or email as you see fit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturalistic decision making

Sorry. I didn't think there was a problem because the old Naturalistic Decision Making page would remain as a redirect. For my own continued Wikificaton, why isn't that good enough? DCDuring 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understood your comment on my talk page. "Naturalistic decision making" is in the canonical form of article titles per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles. I am on a micro-crusade to make articles I come across conform in appearance to MoS. Many article authors, the ones providing the initial material (who often seem closely connected to a particular brand of idea) seem so enamored of the idea that they insist of capitalizing it and repeating it in the headings (also against MoS). Many mid-length, non-stub article seem to have this characteristic. Such articles often have some degree of POV problem, too, because of the nature of their origin. This is probably more than you wanted to hear about this, but I am trying to do my edits and moves in accordance with WP policies and guidelines without any particular animus. Please let me know if I have overlooked something. DCDuring 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An acronym {"NDM") almost always is capitalized, I think, even when it is not referring to a proper name. Long concept names can make articles hard to read, especially because it is often necessary to qualify many sentences with phrases and clauses like "According to NDM," and "NDM theory holds that". Capitalization seems like a small price to pay for the shortening. DCDuring 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your rename of (I Never Promised You a) Rose Garden

I'm trying to figure out why you renamed the article by capitalizing "a". I don't see the rationale at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), but could have missed something. Would explain your reasoning? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and the quick response. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Sorry, was reverting in the wrong tab. —Nightstallion 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shinto

Hi Koavf,

Thanks for taking an interest in articles on Japan. Please note, though, that the English word "Shinto" is written differently from the Japanese. The macron marks the Japanese word; the English has no macron. As a result, I've been undoing the changes you've been making.

I hope you'll continue to help Wikipedia and its collection of articles on Japan. I invite you to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan where you'll find lots of colleagues.

Best regards,

Fg2 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I see how many edits there are, maybe an administrator would be able to undo them with a button I don't have -- do you know anything about that? Fg2 (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down when using AWB/A. C. Gilbert's Discovery Village

If you can't see why I reverted these diffs: [5], [6] let me know. The museum is made up of several historic houses, the NRHP names of which redirect to the current name of the museum. Thanks for adhering to naming conventions but please check each edit when using AWB, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

W.A. Chip & Pulp Co.

Its registered name is "W.A. Chip & Pulp Co. Pty Ltd"[7] I see you've moved it away from its correct title twice already. Please don't do so a third time. Hesperian 05:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)