User talk:Koavf/Archive036

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An icon of a file folder
User talk:Koavf archives
001 81 topics (2005-03-05 – 2006-03-07) 63kb
002 56 topics (2006-03-07 – 2006-08-08) 44kb
003 47 topics (2006-08-08 – 2006-09-14) 48kb
004 60 topics (2006-09-14 – 2007-06-05) 73kb
005 48 topics (2007-06-05 – 2007-08-21) 80kb
006 35 topics (2007-08-21 – 2007-11-30) 73kb
007 42 topics (2007-11-30 – 2008-02-19) 44kb
008 34 topics (2008-02-19 – 2008-03-26) 46kb
009 38 topics (2008-03-26 – 2008-04-19) 38kb
010 39 topics (2008-04-19 – 2008-05-31) 60kb
011 88 topics (2008-05-31 – 2008-08-04) 88kb
012 40 topics (2008-08-04 – 2008-09-11) 61kb
013 46 topics (2008-09-11 – 2009-04-13) 47kb
014 60 topics (2009-04-13 – 2009-09-29) 50kb
015 37 topics (2009-09-29 – 2009-11-21) 46kb
016 22 topics (2009-11-21 – 2010-01-04) 22kb
017 49 topics (2010-01-04 – 2010-02-18) 54kb
018 63 topics (2010-02-18 – 2010-03-23) 63kb
019 44 topics (2010-03-23 – 2010-05-02) 48kb
020 46 topics (2010-05-02 – 2010-06-28) 56kb
021 46 topics (2010-06-28 – 2010-09-01) 71kb
022 54 topics (2010-09-01 – 2010-10-14) 43kb
023 49 topics (2010-10-14 – 2010-11-26) 43kb
024 54 topics (2010-11-26 – 2011-01-22) 37kb
025 61 topics (2011-01-22 – 2011-06-08) 37kb
026 43 topics (2011-06-08 – 2011-07-12) 39kb
027 44 topics (2011-07-12 – 2011-08-15) 48kb
028 44 topics (2011-08-15 – 2011-10-08) 42kb
030 73 topics (2011-11-25 – 2012-02-17) 62kb
031 47 topics (2012-02-17 – 2012-03-14) 74kb
032 40 topics (2012-03-14 – 2012-04-15) 39kb
033 41 topics (2012-04-15 – 2012-05-01) 43kb
034 42 topics (2012-05-01 – 2012-05-30) 38kb
035 58 topics (2012-05-30 – 2012-07-27) 73kb
036 44 topics (2012-07-27 – 2012-09-03) 87kb
037 41 topics (2012-09-03 – 2012-10-26) 61kb
038 47 topics (2012-10-26 – 2012-12-01) 111kb
039 56 topics (2012-12-01 – 2013-02-05) 78kb
040 63 topics (2013-02-05 – 2013-05-14) 69kb
041 71 topics (2013-05-14 – 2013-09-04) 135kb
042 81 topics (2013-09-04 – 2014-01-09) 109kb
043 53 topics (2014-01-09 – 2014-05-15) 69kb
044 62 topics (2014-05-15 – 2014-09-17) 92kb
045 123 topics (2014-09-17 – 2015-05-16) 156kb
046 66 topics (2014-05-16 – 2015-11-11) 73kb
047 91 topics (2015-11-11 – 2016-09-30) 113kb
048 43 topics (2016-09-30 – 2017-01-09) 74kb
049 67 topics (2017-01-09 – 2017-07-21) 96kb
Current discussion


How did you do this?

May I ask how you managed to do this? I'm about to do that same thing myself, but it involved assembling a list of Stubs using AWB, writing a quick Java program to insert "Talk:" in the front of each article in the list, and then use AWB again to scan through the list. It's going well so far, but as you can see my way is complicated. I'd guess it was easier for you, no? I'd be happy to take care of the job for you. Jesse V. (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Find and replace It was pretty simple:
  1. Category recursive: Category:Palestine stubs
  2. Filter: Convert to talk pages, alphabetize, remove duplicates
  3. Replace "{{WikiProject Palestine}}" with "{{WikiProject Palestine |class=stub |importance= }}"
  4. Skip if no replacement.
Let me know if that doesn't make sense. There's no reason to use Java to convert to talk pages—just right-click on your list and you can do that easily. Let me know if I can help you further. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. I also used Java because AWB seems to use some horribly inefficient algorithms for sorting, list merging, and removing duplicates. This becomes very problematic when dealing with hundreds of thousands of articles in a list. ArrayList (a nice dynamic array library) and Quicksort made thing a lot faster. I guess I didn't know AWB could convert to Talk pages! Thanks for the info. :) Jesse V. (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chip123456 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gus dies.png


Thanks for uploading File:Gus dies.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

Hey buddy, I saw you added "missing" tags on David Nasaw for place and year of birth. I know these since he's my dad, but I'm not able to find any sources for his DOB and place of birth. I'm guessing it's frowned upon for me to just go ahead and put that in there, right?

--Dnasaw (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right Sources are required that are verifiable and reliable, as we don't publish original research. There are also issues related to a conflict of interest, but I honestly can't see anyone getting up in arms about you claiming when and where your dad was born. As a practical matter, if you put in that information, it's likely that no one would challenge it, but those should be cited. You know how fact-checkers are, right? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hope you both will be happy with recent changes.smjwalsh (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Love This Giant

While their isn't a single method for presenting track listings, I believe the format I used is more aesthetically pleasing. As for the album length, "Weekend In The Dust" is in fact 3:07 and not 3:08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohetri (talkcontribs) 20:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'd love to do a collaboration. —John —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

New Interview The Daily Beast released an interview with St. Vincent and David Byrne. I don't know how to cite videos so I thought you could do it. Here are the key points:

  • The album cover reflect "beauty and the beast." David Byrne being a "Buzz Lightyear-like figure" beauty and St. Vincent being the beast.
  • Live version will sound very close to the record.
  • They'll be playing songs from the record and some of their own songs.
  • They're own songs will be played along with the brass section (instead of guitar, synth, etc.).
  • The brass section will be able to move around (they have mics attached to their instruments) and form shapes.

Watch it yourself:

P.S. I should also note that around 1:25 you can hear what sounds like an unreleased track. Pohetri (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Leak The album leaked today. Should it be worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohetri (talkcontribs) 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Masculinities Without Men?

I removed your prod after doing a simple series of searches at Google, ending up in scholar. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources But you didn't add any sources...? I see it referenced a number of times but how much actual substantial coverage? I see one actual review and a number of lists that just include the book--that's not notability as far as I can tell. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I added some: is that better? Bearian (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely That establishes notability. There isn't much critical commentary, but that can be added. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Tommy Oliver (musician)

Category:Albums produced by Tommy Oliver (musician), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A little guidance

Yo bro, someone has placed a banner on my article that "This biographical article is written like a résumé", can you please tell me what should I do? And there are 2 I.P addresses messing with the article for no reason, first i.p changed a lot of sentences in the article and placed about 20 "citation needed" tags randomly over the entire article which took me 30 minutes to re-edit, now another one is writing things like the article is opinionated etc etc. Please do checkout this new reference on Sanki King -, everything written in my article can be verified with all the references given. Please tell me what should I do, personally I do no think that the article is written like a Resume. Thanks - SameStruggle (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tone Here are some issues with copy in just the lead: "Abdullah Ahmed Khan professionally known as Sanki or Sanki King is a self-made Pakistani graffiti artist [are any graffiti artists not self-made?], member of an old school American graffiti crew, BMK - Beyond Mankind Krew (NYC),[is this just slang?] traceur and bboy. Based in Karachi, he is the pioneer of graffiti art in Pakistan [NPOV] and one of the early leaders of parkour and b-boying. Sanki is also the first and the only Super Hip Hopper in Pakistan[this sounds wildly subjective](a super hip hopper is a person who has mastered multiple or all elements of Hip Hop)" —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm having the same struggles with this article. Possible COI as well. Editor is also abusive when challenged over superlative terms. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Abuse If someone is being a jerk, try going to WP:ANI. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all I am not being abusive or being a jerk, you can check my comments on this user's page anytime you want. By self-made I meant he hasnt learned graffiti or art from anywhere, but your point is very valid in front of mine and I have edited all the parts that you have mentioned. 2ndly I dont get the slang thing you pointed out. And Ive edited the Pioneer of graffiti thing exactly as mentioned in the most recent reference "some would go as far as saying that Sanki is the pioneer of graffiti art in the country". One more issue is the Super Hip Hopper, its a new term which started out in the Hip Hop Communities in USA a few years ago. First Super Hip Hopper in the West Coast is Caddy One, I can give you his links, people who know him, he is a motivational speaker and works for churches too and lives in California. And Super Hip Hopper is mentioned in the recent reference plus quoted in another reference. Again, I am not being abusive at all, according to Gareth the term is "meaningless", but just because in their opinion "its meaningless" does it mean it should be deleted?? It IS a term thats why its used right? Or do I or Sanki run the media or something like that?... Wouldnt it be polite if Gareth could send me a message on my talk first that these are the problems with your article you should solve them before I change it or someone put it on deletion or something, instead Gareth went ahead and deleted the entire Super Hip Hopper thing out of the article and left a sarcastic note in the edit summary "Super hip-hopper is a meaningless term. If Sanki is, is Kanye the "Superest super hip-hopper". What is this? I think I should be the one going to WP:ANI. I had deleted half of the references out of my article when Gareth put up the banner that my article lacks references etc, because I was putting multiple citations of the same references all around the article as one of the master editors pointed out and asked me to do it, I didnt know about multiple citations before that. And again, dont accuse me of being abusive please thats wrong. Im not making up anything all my messages on Gareth's page and my talk page are still there. SameStruggle (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just got it right, term is super hip hopper but its used as Super Hip Hoppa [1] [2] This link is a Youtube video [3] I have no intention to use it anywhere as a reference but WATCH IT TILL THE END, you guys think Im crazy or something, watch this video and you will know that Im not creating my own own words or superlatives. What you want to know starts at 1:06 in the video. Thanks SameStruggle (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not using the video as a reference, just wanted to show you that there is someone by the name CADDY ONE who exists and that I am not lying about the Super Hip hopper term being a new term in the american hip hop communities, thats it, nothing more than that. Gareth has already mentioned in her last edit that they are going to delete everything which doesnt have a citation, please go ahead. SameStruggle (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A million edits. Holy moley. Congrats

Khballin (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you It's very embarrassing. Thanks for your kind words. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

small caps

It seems you introduced a lot of categories in small caps both in the prefix and the first letter. This is one off run to fix all of these and normalise the naming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are a little patient I'll empty the list once and for good. Fixing categories with small caps is part of CHEWIKI project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay But why? How are these not useless null edits? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed from a run of Frescobot that there were many invisible characters introduced in category prefix with small caps recently and Frescobot tried to fix them (User_talk:Basilicofresco#Misplaced_invisible_LTR_marks). I can fix some too but my method requires that the names are normalised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I finished the task. Frescobot does similar tasks:[4]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Task forces.....

Hey Justin, I'm juggling so much I haven't time to do this easily and figured you might know a quick way....see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force, I wonder if it can have an assessment box like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force for all relevant articles (i.e. all thos in the constellation task force parameter (i.e. "constellations=yes" in the WP:Astro template - these'd be constellation which would be top importance, all current constellations which would be high, all previous ones low (except Argo Navis) and there'll be bibs and bobs to add after that (non-European asterisms etc.). Cheers (hurriedly) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of O.J. Murdock

A tag has been placed on O.J. Murdock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ...William 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


Good grief! He was a lot of things, but not that!

There is no indication that Leonardo was in any way religious. We don't know what his beliefs were. We do know that his father had him baptised. (Not to do so would have caused a scandal). We do know that he made confession and took communion before he died. (Not to do so would have caused huge embarrassment for his patron, the King of France, who could not be seen to patronise a heretic).

But, in fact, Leonardo may well have belonged to a heretical sect. Or he may have been a Jew. There is no indication that he was devoutly Catholic, and among all the thousands of words that he wrote, he left no theological writing.

The fact that he painted Madonnas has to do with the art market of the day. The fact that he painted the Last Supper has to do with a large commission from wealthy clients.

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw a prie-dieu at Leo's house in France, the Clos-Lucé, when I visited it in 1983.
I am not Catholic; it is Leonardo who taught me what a prie-dieu is, in fact.
And, Koavf, I saw your photo in the news! Don't get a swelled head, eh.
Cheers, User:Varlaam (currently blocked). (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I expect that there would have been one provided. If you look at paintings of that date which show well-furnished interiors, there is often a prie-dieu. However, they are often draped, which disguises their shape. Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As of 30 years ago, it was in plain sight.
I don`t recall the nature of Leonardo`s household; it was not crystal clear that it was necessarily for his personal use. It was not in a bedroom; it was in a more publicly accessible area. Memory`s a little hazy; I had the date wrong earlier. That was 1987, not 1983.
But it`s yet another reason to visit the Loire Valley: Leonardo and Rabelais, there`s a duo.
Varlaam. (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Magnapop - Slowly, Slowly promo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Magnapop - Slowly, Slowly promo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξxplicit 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I need an arbitrator for the discussion.


I am Lassoboy.

First of all, I apologize for possible English grammar mistakes in my text, because English is not my native language.

Secondly, I am of the opinion that I need an arbitrator for the discussion, which is going on between me and the user Aspects ( on my talk page.

In short, the main discussion between us is about whether I may/should use the serial numbers in the entertainers/bands touring pages or not (for example, for dangerous tour dates, for world slavery tour dates and so on.) Aspects is continually deleting my edits and demands consensus. I am trying to reach the consensus, but it seems for me that I am unable to achieve this.

So, the full discussion is on my talk page (I will continue to apologize for my grammar mistakes, but I think that my thoughts are understandable.) and I would be very grateful, if you could solve the dispute between us.

Or if you cannot do this, then please recommend me some user/administrator, who can help me, because continually violating my edits is not acceptable for me at all.

Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again!

This is the letter I sent to Aspects.


I sent an application to the user Koavf. The content of the application is connected to our ongoing dispute about the serial numbers for the tour dates. If he agrees to be the arbitrator between us, hopefully he will solve our dispute. If he cannot do that, then I suggested him to propose us another user/administrator to solve our dispute.

I recommend you to not revert back/violate my edits concerning the serial numbers for the tour dates. The main question is and will be, have we reached the consensus. I have tried to do that, but I cannot see that you have tried to do the same. As long as the dispute is up between us, I want you not to revert back my edits, because these edits are definitely not violating Wikipedia`s clauses or state laws. If you are continually going to revert back my edits, further necessary steps will be taken. Nothing personal, I stand up for my rights.

Thank you!

Lassoboy (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hello again!

The great debate is right now going on on page. I would be very grateful if you could say something about the topic on this page.

The main question is about numbering the tour dates and I would be interested in your opinion. What do you think? Do you like the idea of numbering the tour dates or not? Please post your reasonable opinion on the above mentioned page.

Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

why did you create a talk page for Tillery? It's a deleted article - the longest running (so far) hoax, in fact. Actually, you've done it twice, putting a template on it using AWB. If it's AWB's fault, I'd have a look into its settings if in June and August it's coming up with a title deleted in May... Peridon (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB lists It's because I generated some AWB list when it still existed and then between the time that I made the list and the time that I edited the talk it was deleted. I don't know what the content of it was, so I'm not sure why it kept on showing up on the lists that I made. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It was an article about a German band killed in a plane crash in December 1956. Trouble was, only plane crash on the date was in the middle of North America, and the band were flying Germany to Manchester. Tillery is not a 1950s band name, the concert hall didn't exist, and German bands didn't usually fly to the UK in the 50s anyway. Lasted so long because no-one would have looked it up. It was found on a random article search, in fact, by a patroller who was suspicious and tagged it. I never trust auto things - in three years of CSD work before I became an admin, I never user one tool. Only use Twinkle now. I know that they're needed with the size of the place. Might be an idea to suggest to the originator of AWB that a redlink check for the article title should be built into it. I don't usually look into the history with orphaned talk pages that have been tagged, but as I was involved closely with this one I went into it. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagging The entire point was to tag pages to relevant WikiProjects, so this must have been the Germany one. A redlink check wouldn't really work in this instance, because I was creating new pages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was to check if the relevant article existed before a talk page was created for it. Must be possible (he says, having given up programming at COBOL 3). Peridon (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Hi Justin (Koavf), I noticed you added the categories "Christians of Jewish Descent" and "Converts to Christianity" to Bob Dylan. Recently, there was an extremely long discussion of these categories on the Dylan Talk page. See [5] and [6]. After many thousands of words, it was decided to remove these categories from Bob Dylan article. Two administrators took part in this discussion and concurred with the consensus. I think it would be better not to repeat this process. Thanks.

I was disappointed you added "citation needed" to Like A Rolling Stone article. This is an FA. Many good editors have contributed to it. The information you sought was already present in the article. It took me a few minutes to remove your "citation needed" tags just now. As an experienced editor, I thought you would have seen how easy it was to add these cites if you believed they were necessary, rather than add unnecessary "citation needed" tags which others have to clear up. Best wishes Mick gold (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? That's ridiculous. Reading over the talk page discussion, what is unambiguously true got removed simply because someone caused a fuss. If I had a dollar for every time that happened here, I'd be rich. It's actually preposterous to be frank and I'm disappointed that anyone agreed to this: the information is verifiable and very much a part of his public persona, so removing it is simply the wrong thing to do. The nonsense canard of "current status" was also invoked, which is not a guideline, nor should it ever be (if so, e.g. Category:Presidents of France would only ever have one member—it leads to all kinds of absurdities.) Since this information is certainly true (categories Category:American Christians,Category:Converts to Christianity, and Category:Christians of Jewish descent), they will certainly be re-added over time. As far as the citations go, each of those claims should have been cited and it appears that two of them weren't. Thanks for your kind note, even if I am thoroughly disappointed by the first claim in it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand your dismay, but in the end I thought these categories were not helpful in understanding Dylan. I think John Carter is a serious editor of articles on religion and Christianity, and he came to the same conclusion. The sections in the article, "Born again period" and "Religious beliefs", are imho comprehensive and well-cited, so anyone consulting article gets accurate info on that aspect of Dylan's less than straightforward career. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard M. Nixon (album)

A tag has been placed on Richard M. Nixon (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DASHBot (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Morgan–Monroe Observatory: Requested move

This is to let you know that I have requested that this article be moved back to its original title, Morgan-Monroe Observatory, which is now a redirect. The reason is that the hyphen in the present title (which you created in 2010) does not seem to be standard. Typing "Morgan-Monroe Observatory" on a standard keyboard sends the user through the redirect. I'm trying to eliminate an unnecessary redirect. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


The information I added about the blood vinyl release of The Flaming Lips and Heady Fwends is taken from, a website set up by the band to sell this version, and from the Flaming Lips' Wayne Coyne's Twitter account (, where he posted links to photos of people who he has personally delivered copies of the blood vinyl release to holding their copies (often with Wayne in the photo), plus one of him trading a copy for two copies of the Jack White single. There are your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyevocal (talkcontribs) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent If you just add those sources to the article, then the information can stay. Since Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, everything has to have a verifiable source. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed a while ago now you removed Danuta de Rhodes from Category:Pseudonyms; what was the reasoning behind this ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization The category was emptied to not have a mish-mash of examples of pseudonyms, but to instead be about the concept of pseudonmity with specific examples in subcategories (e.g. Category:Pseudonymous writers.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Justin. See Talk:Students For Liberty#Move? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Morgan–Monroe State Forest: Requested move

This is to let you know that I have requested that this article be moved back to its original title, Morgan-Monroe State Forest, which is now a redirect. I understand your distinction between the "en dash" and the "em dash, but typing "Morgan-Monroe State Forest" (using the "en dash") as most users would do sends them through the redirect. I want to eliminate an unnecessary redirect. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dashes The distinction is not between an en dash and an em dash, but an en dash and a hyphen. That aside, redirects exist for exactly this reason—should we overturn all instances of endashes and ignore WP:DASH entirely? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you teach me a few things?

The Typoscan project is done and I'm stuck with the assessment and importance backlog work. I was wondering how can I do this, I've seen you do a lot of tagging and I was wondering how I can do this with an 'idiot's walk through or something. I'm hoping to do some tagging for a new project. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Please post here or explain to me with an e-mail or through IM what it is you're trying to do and I'll try to help. IM seems like the best option, but it may not be feasible due to our schedules. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sadly so, I'm trying to assess biography articles with Kingbotk's AWB Plugin. Everytime I load it, I get an error message for (value) and I do not know if I am configuring it right or not. Not a lot of documentation, I was mainly interested in assessing the unassessed articles in the biography pile, and not tag these. I might just end up running two AWB side by side if I cannot figure out how to work it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Assistance I guess this is stupidly basic, but did you try posting to his talk? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
AWB let me view the Article page, I hit skip and it converts to the talk page for assessment. When I assessed, and hit 'save' the edit was completed, but it did not change the page or make an actual edit. I can however do this manually without the plugin. Using the plugin creates an error of 'value' with a lengthy statement for a bug report, but I can pass it and continue on. Maybe that's why it won't edit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Bug That is really bizarre. I've never used that plugin (although I tried once and just didn't get it), so I can't speak to why that's happening. Have you tried editing it in AWB without the plugin? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Not yet, but I figured the plugin would make things easier then loading extra AWBs up. Since I need to see the article to assess it. Its a tedious process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Orwell article you might be interested in

I know you have a strong interest in George Orwell; I'm not sure if you came across this, but there might be something in here that you could use for one of the Orwell-related WP pages.

KConWiki (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks This is a great find—how thoughtful of you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gandhi Kheda 1918.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Gandhi Kheda 1918.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB Request

Hey Koavf, I was wondering if you could move a couple userboxes over to User:UBX (however that is done) and then switch all the transclusions for each userbox via AWB. The userboxes in question are....

If this is possible (or not), please let me know. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure That's easily done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Horse racing in Great Britain

Category:Horse racing in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 08:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited Crazy Rhythms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom-tom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Sir Morosus

Dear Koavf, graet-great thanks for correctings of my user page --Sir Morosus (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis

Why the change??? Where was the discussion and consensus to change?? Change it back to it's original title now. AaronYou Da One 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consistency If you look at the parent category, most of the articles are in the form of "List of [X] songs"—why would I move back this one? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No they aren't, most are "List of songs recorded by..." Elvis, Beyonce, Rihanna, Shakria etc. You should discuss on the talk page first and propose a move. Leona's list was literally promoted to FL the other day based on songs she has recorded so you are essentially compromising it's FL status. Move it back, as no one else had a problem with it, and propose a move on the talk page like you are supposed to. Or else I will have someone do it for you. AaronYou Da One 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What? First of all, I don't really care for how threatening you are—you should be more civil to me. Secondly, your claim is demonstrably untrue: there are 278 lists in Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers and 18 of them are "List of songs recorded by [X]". Why did you claim otherwise? Finally, the idea that anyone would delist it from FL because of this is absurd—what are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not being threatening, you've just rubbed me up the wrong way. It doesn't matter, you should propse a move on the talk page first, and let others comment, not move it because you feel like it. The article was promoted on the basis of it being songs that she has recorded, because there was a dispute about whether songs that she did not record should be included or not. I am asking you to change it back now, and do what you are mean't to do by following the rules and propose a move on the talk page. AaronYou Da One 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What? Rubbed you the wrong way? The first message you posted said "Change it back to it's [sic] original title now"—you're not my mom or my boss. What makes you think it's okay to talk to me like that? I—like any logged in user—can move pages and I don't have to ask for consensus every time I do. I've made over 500,000 logged actions and most of those are page or file moves to provide consistency. Even if there was a dispute about including songs she hasn't recorded, those could still be added at the new title. In fact, the more generic title applies better to her songs, recorded or otherwise. I understand that you want something, but demanding it and making specious arguments is not how you get what you want. There is no one who posts anything to my talk page saying "Change it back now" whose bad behavior I'm going to reward. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What the hell you have completely blanked the list!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter, you won't change them back anyway. Just because you've made half a million edits it doesn't make you god and above anyone else. AaronYou Da One 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope I did not blank it—it's live now. There was a database error with a revision, but a null edit fixed it. You need to calm down, act civil, and treat other users with respect. I didn't act like God—all I wanted is for you to stop making bossy demands, lying on my talk page, and coming up with nonsense about your work being delisted from FL. If you refuse to abide by those simple requests, then you're going to run into a lot of problems here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you did, I've got a print screen of it. Lying about what? It's true, there was no list. No, you are running into problems by not proposing moves on the talk page. They are all "List of .... songs" now because you are changing all of them to your personal preference. AaronYou Da One 21:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not true "No they aren't, most are 'List of songs recorded by...' Elvis, Beyonce, Rihanna, Shakria etc." That's not true and you know it just by looking at the category. You also lied on the AN/V board. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't lied. It's true, you are making changes without consensus. AaronYou Da One 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No again It's still not true that most of them were of the type "List of songs recorded by [X]". You claimed they were. It also untrue that I am committing acts of vandalism or that you followed procedure using the vandalism noticeboard. You're acting childish. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'll be the adult and remove myself from the situation. And stop leaving talkbacks on my talk page, I know when you've replied. AaronYou Da One 21:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I just noticed this discussion, and at the risk of seeming rude, it seems like you should take this sort of heated dispute to a noticeboard where other users could help sort things out. Should I open a discussion? Friginator (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

About? What is there to discuss? Why should this be the only list of songs in the format "List of songs recorded by [X]"? I just don't get it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It just seems like there are better ways to handle this situation. I have no opinion on the subject of your discussion, but it would be helpful to bring this to the attention of other users if you view it as important. Friginator (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus I agree that nothing is coming of this, but I also think that there is nothing to come of it. Apparently, Calvin/Aaron isn't interested as well, so I don't know what there is to say. I appreciate your offer to help, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I am interested, don't speak on behalf/for me, but you won't acknowledge/cooperate, so it's pointless. 21:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I came across this dispute after finding an inappropriate report on WP:AIV. Take a look at Calvin's block log. He has a long history of ownership and bullying/confrontations like this. He's now on a 1RR restriction. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sad I am disappointed by that—he clearly writes good work, but if he's going to be belligerent and immature, then it's unfortunate that we'll lose out on all of the good and productive edits he could make while being blocked. If he didn't act so aggressive and churlish to me, we might have had a pleasant interaction, but being demanding from the moment that you post here and giving gobbledigook and patently false reasons is not going to endear him to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It's funny how I was being blocked for ownership and not talking about things on talk pages, yet when names of lists are being changed without consensus on the talk page, no one cares? It doesn't matter how I react to you Koavf, you still think you are right, and wouldn't have changed the names back anyway, so it's pointless. At the end of the day, I disagree with changing the names. I was either going to agree or disagree, and I disagreed. That's my opinion. I'm not being childish or immature, that's only your opinion because I don't share your opinion. AaronYou Da One 22:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Third-party comment (non-admin), Having looked over the comments and both users edits the following is apparent. Koavf does a lot of editing work around catagories and article names/style conventions. His point around a single naming convention is in principle correct. If the majority of articles within a category have a set naming convention then it makes sense and is a logicial conclusion that the concensus leans towards that particular naming convention. However Koavf should have informed Aaron of his/her intentions before moving the page. Aaron should have looked at the move objectively after being informed by Koavf that it was taking place and that would have ended the situation. I think its a case of a heavy hand and a lack of communication on behalf of all users. Note to Toddst1: Calvin/Aaron has been problematic in the past but in recent times has proven to have changed quite a lot and worked quite hard to ensure he engages more with others over content and editing. Note to all involved: the lesson from this is to inform others of page moves like this where it might not be directly obvious what the purpose of the move is, before the move takes place. that's my opinion. Ignore it if you like, I just think this situation could have been easily avoided.Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Interested party comment. Firstly Justin is not correct when he says he was standardising members of Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers, there are

  1. List of cover versions of XXXX,
  2. List of songs written by XXXX,
  3. List of songs with lyrics by XXXX (Justin actually moved one to this this week!),
  4. List of cover versions of XXXX,
  5. List of singles by XXXX
  6. List of unreleased XXXX songs,
  7. List of xxxx songs,
  8. List of songs by XXXX.
  9. List of songs recorded bv XXXX,
  10. amongst others.

Taken with "songs written by, then the written/recorded by would have been the majority! If Justin had started amongst the single individualistic titles, like "Linda Perry Discography" he would have had my blessing!
All the Leona Lewis move does, and several others (but not necessarily all) is to ignore the content and subject matter of the article and to move according to where one person thinks WP wants it. I have placed a requested move on the Leona Lewis list and several others and opposed Justin's requests for moves where appropriate. I have also moved a couple of lists that state "List of songs recorded by" to where they belong.
For what it's worth, I have always preferred 'Songs recorded by' as it is specific, easily understandable and eliminates entries for one live performance on a wet Wednesday in Wichita (ie non-notable). List of Richhoncho songs could mean what's on my ipod today!--Richhoncho (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Not quite Since the category includes composers/writers alongside performers, obviously including those is missing the point, Rich. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. Forgetting that there are actually 21 different varieties of List within the category (and remember they are articles, not categories), it is is impossible to harmonise the members' article title - which kind of defeats every argument you have. Sticking to just 4 different kinds we have songs written by X, songs by X, X songs and the songs recorded. We also have songs with lyrics by X which according to the move you made this week you approve of. Now for the life of me I can't see if Songs written by is OK, why not Songs performed by? or Recorded by? What makes the whole thing even more laughable is that, for example, List of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra was moved to that title by you! and, Shakira you moved over a redirect. Surely that deserved some discussion before moving, it wasn't urgent, it wasn't actually upsetting anybody but you! Did you even look at the histories of these articles? Did you ever consider the redirects you were creating when there is absolutely no purpose or benefit except you thought it was the right thing to do? FWIW, I've been looking at this category for some months, realising as it gets bigger something needs to be done with and considering options and, how to get other editors involved. Yep, I am really p*ssed off, so I hope I am not impolite! You are back on my watch list, unfortunately, no need to post to my talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit comments

Hello! I noticed in your log that you rarely add comments when you move pages and I would just like to ask that you do. Also, comments like "what?" and "per main" doesn't really say much. :-) Please respond here to keep discussion in one place. --Bensin (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure It's a fair request, of course. Sometimes, I take it for granted that "per main" refers to the main article about a topic and is more-or-less self-evident, but it's not always. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I figured as much, but something as short as "per main article" spells it out. The "what?" comment was definitely harder to decipher :-) Anyway, thanks for responding and happy editing!. --Bensin (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Black Swan


I'm not familiar with all the details of the FA process, but I would say it stands in very good stead to pass. Strangely, I received a bit of a critical message from another user who said that I had failed to dig-up huge errors with Black Swan-personally, I thought it well exceeded the GA criteria and deserved an immediate pass. Thanks! Jennie | 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The 12 String Guitar of Glen Campbell/List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis (continued)

Thanks for the best laugh of the day with this edit, here. As it's an instrumental you won't mind if I remove the cat, will you? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And another one, here. There's nothing in the article to confirm or deny its in english, so the song titles should be used to give a clue..--Richhoncho (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hilarious You don't have to post to my talk every time you revert me from three years ago, but thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
And I wouldn't normally bother, the first was funny, the second was the next I saw, so that doubled the laughter. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Right It's a knee-slapper. I'm going to ask you to stop moving all of these pages per WP:POINT. As pointed out several times, a centralized discussion is a wise decision, rather than a piecemeal attempt to move some of the pages. Does that sound good? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you talking about instrumental albums by language or Lists of songs recorded by? If the first I shall remove without bothering you, if you mean the second, at long as you can assure me you understand the irony of your request. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Requests The second. It's not ironic: when someone on Wikipedia does something and one person comes along who is notorious for bickering and demands that he change it immediately, that can be safely ignored. When someone else who was previously uninvolved becomes involved and then spreads that across several pages with requests and reverts all over and other users jump in, then it's a community-wide discussion to be had rather than a single user taking irrational defense. For what it's worth, I'm entirely in favor of having differing schemes of song lists as long as they are logical and clearly delineated. I'm not if they are all a random hodge podge. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't mix me up with Adabow/Calvin on this. I happen to agree with him this time, but that's it. He should have RM'd the same as I did. I picked up on the moves because you nominated the Presley list which I created. It was much later I checked your talkpage (also you still need to confirm you have read my post in under the Lewis para above). But the whole point, which you confirm above, I have brought the community in - something you failed to do. And, funny enough, I have exactly the same editing rights as you! Hence there is real irony here. I don't suppose you'll revert the Lists you moved but are not RM'd yet, but a list of them might be useful in the meantime - if you do I certainly will feel we can reach an agreement and neither of us will act singularly. Ah, the benefits of consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Right It's funny that I keep on responding to you--not funny ha-ha, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I shall read that last comment that you have no intention to working towards consensus with me or anybody else. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course You'll read into it what you will (note, of course, that the last message I sent before that was about building consensus.) I've no doubt that you've got a thoughtful opinion to give on these topics and I'm sure that you'll continue in the good work that you've done on song-related articles. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case give me something other than a request for ME to seek consensus - while you have patently NOT looked for consensus in the past and still show no sign of doing so in the future. I have at presently stopped any work on the Lists of songs category and I am waiting for you to show good faith, goodwill etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay If you want to have a discussion, I will give my two cents. I didn't move one page in order to be caught up in a huge discussion about hundreds of articles, but I'm certainly willing to offer my perspective if someone else thinks that there's a centralized place to have said discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We are still dancing with the English-language and that is pointless. You said above,
    ::::As pointed out several times, a centralized discussion is a wise decision, rather than a piecemeal attempt to move some of the pages. Does that sound good?
I have agreed - the next move is yours, not mine. You have to establish that you want consensus, too. Having reviewed the history of the changes and seen some of the comments to the RMs I am confident I already have consensus on my side. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus If you get consensus on X-number moves, then we're back to square one--you've just reiterated the problem, Rich. Where do you think a centralized discussion would work? WT:SONG? WT:MUSIC? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's you that needs to seek consensus - take your centralised discussion where you think is appropriate.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh? You think it's a good idea to seek consensus, but you're not willing to even suggest where it might be? And you think that I'm not willing to be cooperative? Why won't you just give me your feedback on what you think will work best? I've found centralized discussions in the past to be mostly wasteful because no one responds. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? You suggest centralised discussion and now you say they don't work (don't work for you, perhaps?). I don't care where you take it as long as it is relevant, don't suppose WP:Religion is relevant, do you? We are talking about "songs" so that might give you a clue!!! I will help you publicise without seeking !votes. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No It's not a joke—I've never found it helpful and always found it exhausting, but I'll do it again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Done I'll keep my eyes on it. I guess this is where you thought I should post it, but since you were deliberately obscure, it's tough to say (WikiProject Lists, perhaps?) —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Having seen the content of your request, I fully understand why you think they are a waste of time. But, hey, we are now moving in the same direction, so that's a first and a plus! No reason why courtesy notes to say there is a discussion going on can't be placed anywhere where editors congregate interested in music/songs/artists. BTW I wasn't been obscure, I said I would support you wherever you placed it. Can't get less obscure than that and I have kept my word. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course You're not being obscure, but you write things like "Having seen the content of your request, I fully understand why you think they are a waste of time" (without telling me what you think is wrong with it) or "We are talking about "songs" so that might give you a clue!!!" (without being explicit.) The way that you're so coy is not helpful--do you realize that? Furthermore, in addition to not being helpful, it's frustrating and off-putting. Comments like this are just needlessly vague and only seek to prod me into figuring out what it is you really want instead of just making your point. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Your talkpage is nearly full with discussions whether the correct format for certain articles is "List of XXXX songs" -v- "List of songs recorded by XXXX" That's not what you put up for discussion. But, as I said, we can work on it! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's Child: Romanian Angel Appeal

What a wonderful edit you made here. Can we extend this principle this albums by producer? LOL.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course WP:ALBUM has a lot of activity on its Manual of Style. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bob Dylan: The Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brendan O'Brien
Hearts of Fire (soundtrack) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Let the Good Times Roll
The Best of Bob Dylan, Vol. 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brendan O'Brien

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Everybody Wins (Breaking Bad) listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Everybody Wins (Breaking Bad). Since you had some involvement with the Everybody Wins (Breaking Bad) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

An odd template

Howdy. What does adding the template in this edit do? Considering that the file's page already has a non-free template on it, it seems kind odd to put another template on there also stating the file is non-free.--Rockfang (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Template I added it only because I saw that it had been added on other such media. The nice thing about this and its placement is that it immediately informs users who see it about what constitutes non-free media. I'm actually editing the template now to have more useful links in it. (No, I'm not, as it's protected.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
does adding that template actually add anything useful? — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Such as? It doesn't auto-categorize, if that's what you're asking--it's just a notice at the beginning of the file page to alert users. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like overkill. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay Do you want to take it to WP:TFD? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Regarding {{Has-NFUR}}, what does "free-text" mean? Hyacinth (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Goodness This has turned into a small headache... I didn't make the template, so I'm not 100% certain, but the impression I get is that the textual justifications for a given piece of media may be worded differently from piece to piece. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Then would it apply to File:Magic chord.mid, which currently uses {{Non-free use rationale}} [7]? If it it does apply to that file what wouldn't it apply to? Hyacinth (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The text of the template is patently absurd. The requirement that the file page of non-free media include an explanation of how the media meets criteria is not itself one of the criteria. The sentence is self-referential and prima facie illogical.
But beyond that, I don't see the logic in smearing templates like this all over wikipedia. A review of non-free media is always a welcome and worthwhile endeavor; but this template does absolutely nothing, especially when it is attached to media that explicitly meet all the criteria. Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, in answer to Hyacinth's question, my impression is that "free text" means that the explanation do not appear in the standard free-use template (Non-free use rationale), but are simply written as text. However, if that is so, the template has been applied to numerous media files where the template is used, for example, File:RaashLavan.ogg. So either this template is being misused, or it is fundamentally misguided. Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
{{has-NFUR}} should not be present if one of the existing rationale templates is used Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8323

AWB is outdated. We provide AWB (rev 8323) at which fixes hundreds of bugs and it is faster. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sub temps

How are you doing the sub templates? Your edit summaries which read, 'Substituting template per documentation, replaced: {{Unsigned → {{subst:unsigned using AWB' are a bit confusing, is there consensus to change all these now? Last time I looked there wasn't concensus because doing the subs could cause them to break, or so it said on Wikipedia:Substitution. I could help in cleaning up the matter, I got a few days before the next enwiki dump completes before I can get back to correcting high priority CHECKWIKI fixes. Needless to say, I'm bored. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anthem of the Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chime
Blues for Allah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
From the Mars Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
Go to Heaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
History of the Grateful Dead, Volume One (Bear's Choice) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
Shakedown Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
Terrapin Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux
Wake of the Flood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lemieux

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)