User talk:Koavf/Archive011
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
Merge of Lithium (Ailyn song)
I see you place a merge tag on the Evanescence song Lithium's article, but gave no explanation on the talk page. I can see why you would suggest such a merge, but I'd still recommend a section be started by you on the Evanescence Lithium talk page. If such a merge were to go through, I would ask for a definitive source for the information in the article, other than simply saying it came from her website (aka, a source for release date and other such info). I can perform the merge with no problem, but I would like to have that. I can't see this being a particularly controversial move, given that there is no real notability attached to the song or article, so after about a week (unless something changes), I'll take care of it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why you performed this rename in light of the comments I had made underneath the proposal? The category clearly didn't meet the speedy criteria, and I placed my comment there trusting that that would be sufficient to let users know not to perform the change speedily. If I'm missing the criterion, please point it out to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh buddy This will sound improbable, but I actually read that response right after I made the change and I hadn't slept in awhile, so I was kind of out of my mind. Ugh. So sorry; I'll undo or re-list for CfD or whatever you think is best. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, no. It's done; that's fine. I'm not looking to reverse it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your revert using the image talk page. I have discussed my rationale there extensively, while you have never once posted a comment there. Please see WP:BRD. Also I hope this isn't part of any long term pattern of disruptive editing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello I saw you here and I was wondering if you could grant me rollback. My 1RR ArbCom enforcement ends today and I would like to have this to undo vandalism and mistakes. I had this and lost it earlier due to two reverts in a day. Of course, this is pretty low-level back-and-forth and I'm no longer on 1RR. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Due to your lengthy history of apparent reversion related issues I'm not inclined to grant this at this time, however I am far from the final word on this, and you can seek a wider audience at RFR. — xaosflux Talk 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Kalki
Hello, I notice you are an experienced editor in some Hinduism related subjects. Could you please take the time to look at Kalki? It is currently (in his own words) guarded by Ghostexorcist. And I don't have the experience to know how to make changes that don't get reverted. These are my concerns about it. See if you agree.
- An inordinate portion of the article is devoted to subjects tangential to the Hindu concept under the heading "Modern variations of the Kalki prophecy." I think this title itself is a contradiction in terms. What modern variation of the prophesy is there in Hinduism? It might read "modern interpretations" but Ghostexorcist will not allow even this to be discussed.
- The way the section is put together it gives the impression that the views of one author Savitri Devi Mukherji that Adolf Hitler was Kalki is a part of Hindu thought. By excluding other similar silly notions he puts un-due focus to that one idea, making Hinduism look morally baron.
- By having this Nazi allusion follow directly after Alejandro Biondini, a Nazi in Argentina, Ghostexorcist is de facto insisting on giving the Kalki concept a nazi connotation and I can't understand his motive.
- Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight holds that Wikipedia is not a repository for opinions that almost no one holds - such as that Hitler was Kalki - a view that apparently a single Hindu author who is now dead had. By insisting on having this rare opinion kept highlighted he gives the impression this is a genuine Hindu view by not saying it is not. This seems a clear case of "undue weight" as defined by Wikipedia.
What I was hoping is that you might know one or two experienced editors like yourself that could bring some weight to bear on that article. As it is it goes nowhere as all serious changes are reverted by Ghostexorcist who says he guards the article. Thank you for your time. I hope you will help. Vedantahindu (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Turks and Caicos Islander footballers
Category:Turks and Caicos Islander footballers, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion
Your cryptic explanation for deleting a cat. listing (future stories now past) is clear to me. I went to AWB, but it is a long convoluted discussion about bots. I didn't feel like spending 15-20 min. to maybe find out what it's all about. The cat. seems like a reasonable one to me, and the book would/does fall into that cat., so could you tell me the reason for deleting, using plain English? Thanks.Kdammers (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- (as a side note) I declined the speedy at that time because it was not empty (15 articles or so). I have no opinion on the deletion itself, but the speedy process was not OK (rule of a thumb: if you use db-reason, that means 90% of the time that the deletion is out of process) -- lucasbfr talk 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Fan mail"
Thank you for your note. I hadn't thought about the fact that some people might click on the link and expect to find legitimate fan mail. I'll change its description. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Move completed. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
EL
Moving of Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough and Shop 'Til You Drop
I noticed you contested these moves on the basis that the word "until" is capitalized normally. This doesn't matter in the following cases, as the word is not "until", but "'til", which is a conjunction less than five letters long. It means the same thing as until, but it is a different word. See my response to your comments; not capitalizing "'til" is supported by both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization, rule 2. Besides that, there are a ton of articles that use a non-capitalized contraction of long conjunctions and prepositions; I'll post the list I put on WP:RM to show you:
And yes, there are more examples as well. Sorry for sounding jerkish, but I am very concerned about capitalization of Wikipedia articles, because it is an utter mess right now. -Xnux the Echidna 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Trust me, capitalization is definitely a mess. Despite that bulky list, I could create an even longer list of articles that incorrectly capitalize "'bout", "over", "down", "off", "out", and "than". It's a nightmare O_o. -Xnux the Echidna 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- So... can I go ahead and move Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough and Shop 'Til You Drop back to the uncontroversial moves section? -Xnux the Echidna 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts
I have nominated Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 00:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Bahai Faith project
Personally, I wouldn't remove any banners just yet, particularly considering the project in question has only one member. What I would do is definitely add it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page to get a few more members before placing any more banners. If the projects later become inactive, they tend to be incorporated into one of the larger projects, and their banners deprecated and replaced with an altered "parent" project banner allowing for separate assessments. The first thing I would do, however, would be to seek additional members. Then, if it has a little support, maybe changing it to a task force of Religion. If it has more support, then there would be cause for a separate project. But first the group needs to get enough members to indicate it is viable. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Little context in Category:Alumni of the University of Colombo
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Alumni of the University of Colombo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Alumni of the University of Colombo is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Alumni of the University of Colombo, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive - Moses
A question regarding the method used to create the archive of Talk:Moses:
I noticed you used the page move method rather than the normal copy and paste method; would you kindly explain your reasoning in doing so? Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. When I used the term normal, it is based on my limited understanding of Wikipedia. It is also based on my experience when archiving talk pages that the entire talk page is not archived but only the older portions, in which case moving the history of the new edits would be wrong. In the case of Talk:Moses there were no new edits that needed to be retained. As far as adding it to your watch list, there really should be no difference, but that does depend on how you have your preferences set which has 3 options, pages I create, pages I move, and pages I edit. Then there is always the option to click on "watch" to added it. Thanks again for the reply Dbiel (Talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Archiving
You've archived Talk:Vincent van Gogh and Talk:Pablo Picasso. Please don't archive talk pages like this in which you are not a participant, without consulting with the regular editors. There are at least 3 current threads on the VG talk page which you have archived. In addition, you have used the move method for Picasso archive 2, whereas archive 1 is cut and paste. This is really confusing. Let editors using the talk page decide which method they want to use. I always use cut and paste, as it is the easiest for most editors to use (including me) and can be done easily as and when required. I don't think you're correct with archive changes not showing up after cut and paste, as this is how I archive my user talk pages, and archive changes do show up. Please revert these moves you have made. Thanks. Ty 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The above is an example of why the move method of creating archives can create problems. If there are previous archives that used the cut and paste method and then the move method is used to create a new archive, the history files become a mess. The entire history of the talk page including the previous archives will be attached to the new archive with one easy way to fix it. Additionally, active topics should not be archived which can not be avoided when using the move method. Dbiel (Talk) 02:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- History and active discussions The history will obviously be moved with the page, but that's part of the point. I suppose if cut-and-paste had been used prior it could be problematic to search the history, but if cut-and-past had been used, it would be impossible to see the history of that archive anyway - users' comments will all be moved en masse under one account. As you can see on Ty's talk, I did not move active topics; I am aware that such is a serious problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting and pasting is typically preferable to page-move archiving. xenocidic (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is preferable to retain the entire talk page history in place rather than have it moved to the archive. Though admittedly, there is no policy. I don't see any significant advantage in page-move archiving. As you can see above, your preference for page-move archiving is (seemingly) of the minority, thus, you should seek consensus before performing page-move archiving (especially when past page archives have used cut&paste). xenocidic (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've never seen anyone complain about cut-and-paste archiving (as it is standard, this is how bots do it, etc.), however, as you can see from the above, people do not like pagemove archiving. I suppose my only desire here is for you to seek consensus before performing such moves, and furthermore, I took a look at some of the archiving you've done and frankly didn't see a need for the archiving in the first place. There's no need to nearly completely harvest a page when archiving it, for example, as you did at Talk:Charles Darwin. The talk page was not overly lengthy. xenocidic (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is preferable to retain the entire talk page history in place rather than have it moved to the archive. Though admittedly, there is no policy. I don't see any significant advantage in page-move archiving. As you can see above, your preference for page-move archiving is (seemingly) of the minority, thus, you should seek consensus before performing page-move archiving (especially when past page archives have used cut&paste). xenocidic (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cutting and pasting is typically preferable to page-move archiving. xenocidic (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- History and active discussions The history will obviously be moved with the page, but that's part of the point. I suppose if cut-and-paste had been used prior it could be problematic to search the history, but if cut-and-past had been used, it would be impossible to see the history of that archive anyway - users' comments will all be moved en masse under one account. As you can see on Ty's talk, I did not move active topics; I am aware that such is a serious problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You said on User talk:Dbiel:
- Sure I don't mind explaining. I use the move method for two reasons: it's what I've always used and it results in watching the moved talk - this way, if someone vandalizes a talk archive, someone might notice.
If you use cut and paste, the archives will still be watched and any vandalising will still be noticed. Some article talk pages can end up with a large number of archives. With move archiving, the history is moved also, so each archive has the history of its edits. That means the entire history is chopped up, so to search it, you have to enter each archive and look through. With cut-and-paste, the whole history of the talk page is kept in one place, namely with the main talk page, so it's much easier to look through it to find something—then use the date to look in a particular archive where it now resides. Also with cut-and-paste, it's easy to add something extra into the archive, if it fits properly with it, i.e. you can add sections as they become outdated on the talk page. With the move method, it has to be done in one big block, and it's then very complex to add anything further, as it requires a complex merge, needing admin assistance for deletion, in order to accomplish that. As far as the Van Gogh talk page is concerned, it's a very slow moving article, so talk may well take place over a long time period.
Your efforts to help are appreciated, but need to be done more cautiously. By all means set up the archive box, but please post on the talk page as to what you intend to archive, before doing it, so regular editors of that article can respond. I strongly suggest using cut-and-paste, because, as I've pointed out above, it is more adaptable, and, from my observation, the most commonly used method, so one which is likely to be expected. If you do want to use the move method, then again it is courtesy to gain consensus for this from the editors working on that article, as they are likely to have to follow up in the future with archiving.
I didn't reverse your actions. That was someone else.
As pointed out above, the two methods should not be mixed, as it results in a complete history mess. Also it is usually good for the most recent posts on a talk page to be left, even if apparently finished, because a) they might not be finished - someone else may have something to add b) it is useful to be able to look over these and clues new editors to the article into what has been going on.
Constant reversion
I don't understand what you are doing?. I am trying to contribute with my best. I have a seen a biased representation of the historical facts and I tried to correct it what is wrong with this. Please stop yourself, or do your home work of reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristmed (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Copernicus Talk
Why did you move (i.e., redirect) the entire Talk page for Nicolaus Copernicus to an archive page? Including recent posts? And then create a new, blank Talk page for the article? That is not a normal way of archiving because it wipes out the entire Talk page history. Also, the new Talk page that you made does not even showing were the archives are or that any exist. Your move also broke all the links to the old archive pages. I also do not recall seeing you as a recent participant in the article or its Talk page, so I do not understand why you took it upon yourself to do this. Please explain. Finell (Talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
- Discussion It appeared to me that discussion was at a standstill as the only comments for the past two weeks were spam and what appeared to be a consensus on a controversy. Moving is a recommended method of archiving, and I honestly don't know how normal it is compared to cut-and-paste. If you actually have some data, I would genuinely be interested in seeing it.
- I'm at a bit of a loss about your allegations: once moved, there was a link to the new archive; it is automatically generated by {{talkheader}}. If you mean that I did not include a link in the archive box floating on the side of the screen you are correct and that is simply an oversight of mine; I should have done that and I'm sorry for being negligent. I archived several talk pages that seemed too long, including this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see, there's numerous people coming to your talk page to complain about pagemove archiving. How about you try cut-and-paste archiving a few pages, and see how many people come and complain? I would be willing to bet the number will be close to zero. xenocidic (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay You've made your point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you take note that the previous two archives were done using cut and paste before using move to create the next archive? Dbiel (Talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had not seen you previous post at User talk:Tyrenius which deals with this question. I am glad that you agree that mixing archive methods is not a good idea. Dbiel (Talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of which method you use, archiving is best done by someone who is familiar with the particular article and talk page involved or a bot that has been set by such an editor. Nicolaus Copernicus, for example, has a long and contentious edit history on the subject of Copernicus's nationality and long and contentious Talk page discussions about it. It is better for a newcomer to the page to see at least a good sampling of that discussion rather than make some blunder, through ignorance of the discussion, that will reignite the war between Poland and Germany. Please stop your mass archiving campaign. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Stop? If you want to see how many archives I've done and when, you can look at my contributions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Koavf stopped archiving after people began raising concerns. The original attempts were in good faith. However, I do echo Finell's desire not to have a talk archive completely harvested. xenocidic (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Stop? If you want to see how many archives I've done and when, you can look at my contributions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of which method you use, archiving is best done by someone who is familiar with the particular article and talk page involved or a bot that has been set by such an editor. Nicolaus Copernicus, for example, has a long and contentious edit history on the subject of Copernicus's nationality and long and contentious Talk page discussions about it. It is better for a newcomer to the page to see at least a good sampling of that discussion rather than make some blunder, through ignorance of the discussion, that will reignite the war between Poland and Germany. Please stop your mass archiving campaign. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you I'm interested in seeing where this goes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- cheers. while it may seem like it, I'm not trying to beat this over your head or anything, I just think that we should investigate and see if there is indeed a consensus to standardize archiving procedure. xenocidic (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'm assuming good faith - you're trying to get some resolution on the matter and you're not being a jerk about it. We may not see eye-to-eye, but I've got no beef with you. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Happy editing. =) xenocidic (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'm assuming good faith - you're trying to get some resolution on the matter and you're not being a jerk about it. We may not see eye-to-eye, but I've got no beef with you. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- cheers. while it may seem like it, I'm not trying to beat this over your head or anything, I just think that we should investigate and see if there is indeed a consensus to standardize archiving procedure. xenocidic (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Your "Nothing but Trouble" moves
I have reverted all of them. Please read this conversation and you'll find out why. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Doesn't Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) say anything in regards to official titles? I don't think capitalization applies to such instances, but I can't recall a particular article ATM. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dunno I have to admit my own ignorance about a lot of Wikipedia policy, to be honest. As far as I'm aware the only two relevant passages are the ones that I quoted. Please do let me know if I'm on the wrong track. Otherwise, you can try posting on the Community Pump or WP:IRC possibly. Again, much thanks for your input and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on, I don't agree with your re-moving of the pages just yet. It appears Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) specifies that if the little words are capitalized, then it can be used in that manner (in this case, "Nothing But Trouble" over "Nothing but Trouble"). Am I interpreting it correctly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Koavf, I don't understand why you say it's not to be capitalized. It's a preposition. Aside from that, the word is being used as part of a licensed title. Care to reiterate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on, I don't agree with your re-moving of the pages just yet. It appears Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) specifies that if the little words are capitalized, then it can be used in that manner (in this case, "Nothing But Trouble" over "Nothing but Trouble"). Am I interpreting it correctly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dunno I have to admit my own ignorance about a lot of Wikipedia policy, to be honest. As far as I'm aware the only two relevant passages are the ones that I quoted. Please do let me know if I'm on the wrong track. Otherwise, you can try posting on the Community Pump or WP:IRC possibly. Again, much thanks for your input and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films):
- Conventions: Each word in a film title takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions, and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with", "about"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle.
So it should be "Nothing but Trouble". Ty 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Removing links to images
Yes, links to non-free images are fine. The current way it is removing the images is just "dumb" find but I'll add detection for links. BJTalk 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lies, Sissies, and Fiascos - The Best of This American Life.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lies, Sissies, and Fiascos - The Best of This American Life.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
New Thought
New Thought can be part of Christianity such as Unity, Divine Science. So it seems to be a cross over. I was under the impression these Categories and sub-categories. Where there to help people search Wiki.66.108.106.248 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I joined to see what can be done. Mind that a great deal of work has been done for a long time by contributors already so I don't see the project as usurping their contributions whether they are part of a project or not. But working in groups is a potentially a good thing. I've certainly been working on a personal project, Category:Bahá'í Faith by country, that I envision needing others to get very far anyway. And there are decisions I've made mostly on my own about some things that probably do need some group consultation on to make more certain. But I'm not very fond of edits that simply trim or label a failing without doing the work of refining either content or citation. I do have some questions though - what if a page can be part of multiple projects - is there a structure that resolve such things? For example I'm somewhat unhappy with how Great Disappointment worked out where an editor did a massive re-write, was challenged, had a process to discuss the differences and his computer broke leaving us hanging. --Smkolins (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah. You might have invited the editors who've been here for some years to join, or at least flagged it on the main page's talk. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was distracted. While you were setting up this laudable project, I was dealing with one of the nastiest sons of bitchs I've ever seen here on WP. (Take a look at the block log.)
- However, on which diff did you add the new project on the main page's talk. Did the edit summary highlight it? Did it get lost in the archiving edits? I don't see any announcement/discussion on the talk page, nor edit summary highlighting the new project.
- No sarcasm laddie. There are several editors who watch that page like hawks who are not in the project (Jeff3000, Cuñado, Peter Deer, Sufisticated, myself). You didn't get your point across.
- These are all people that should want aboard (Except me — but you've probably already figured that out). Not one of them doesn't have deep edit war scars, sweated blood here, and deserve to be invited directly. At the very least their collective institutional memory will help the project significantly, and help avoid things like the Baha'i literature move. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree they are all people who should be part of the project, you included. I commented along those lines elsewhere. But could some of this vehemence be as much about new blood coming in the game? Enoch Olinga became Hand of the Cause in 4 years form declaration. Badí‘ made saint-hood, for lack of a better word, in weeks. But turning the question around, why didn't anyone make a project before? I did think about having us "spotted" all in one place. I know periodically there are accusations of inherent bias but I think that is something that can be dealt with, (no less than the Baha'is at large have to deal with it in some countries, unless you think Wikipedia cultural approaches Turkmenistan?) But maybe now is the right time for this kind of thing. I know we all have our own projects ongoing. I've seen some of the work dealing with Thamarih too btw. The cooperative work of others, some asked for and a fair bit unasked and even a bit pushy, if right, has transformed my initiative project of Category:Bahá'í Faith by country much more successful, I'd say. That kind of cooperation could be timely. --Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
SmackBot
Silly null edit You might want to make SmackBot stop doing things like this; it seems pointless. Let me know if there's something I'm missing here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. "Date=" won't work "date=" will. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35 22 June 2008 (GMT).
Excuse me, but would care to offer some discussion prior to unilaterally moving an article? You don't just unilaterally rename an article to fit template titles. Bad form dude.
A very large portion of the documents discussed there are not "texts" as religious studies uses the term. Taherzadeh is not sacred text. Frankly, neither is Shoghi Effendi. "Literature" is by far the more correct term for the body of works discussed. Calling it Baha'i texts is misleading and incorrect.
Please undo this move and invite discussion.
In future you will find a much more inviting environment if you discuss things first. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- When executing 12,000 page moves you will make a few mis-steps.
- Bahá'í literature discusses the entire range of Baha'i literature, including books that are properly considered Baha'i studies.
- Category:Bahá'í texts lists sacred texts, and a few very imporant other books. It is of notably narrower scope than the article.
- There is a real difference between the terms "sacred text" and "literature". The latter is considerably broader.
- Renaming this article, which is about the whole literature, to "texts" mis-states the focus of the subject matter; and in my opinion compromises its encylcopedic value.
- Where is it WP policy or guide practice to have articles named after the categories they discuss in part. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to the Curtis Payne article as the unreferenced tag is innacurate, the article cites references from sources including TBS (the network which House of Payne airs on) and the internet movie data base. K.H (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time
what is you're final verdict of copyright infringement of the Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time article?.--Theoneintraining (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: WP:1.0 assessment request
Hi. I think the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality. Since the category that is fed into Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments is Category:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality, not Category: Bahá'í Faith articles by quality, the 1.0 bot adds the "WikiProject" prefix to the name of the page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually, it's optional, as the final wording is still being finalized. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, nobody knows why that is happening. :P The {{B-Class}} template was updated at the same time the {{C-Class}} template was, so it is really perplexing why one modification spread through to the tables, and not the other. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Xian (Taoism) redirect
Please check all of the redirects for the above article that you changed using AWB. All are misspelled, except for one that I fixed. I'd fix them all, but you can probably just run AWB again a lot faster.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope
Don't bold alternate names in other languages in the lead, just alternate English names. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Actually, I had forgotten that this page existed in my userspace. It was a project that I had started many moons ago but had since forgotten about. What exactly was the long debate on IRC about? I don't need a detailed blow-by-blow account, just a summary of the key issues would be enough.
Thanx.
--Richard (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Indigo
The inclusion of indigo was an inclusion of a scientist who has been dead for 281 years. He wanted indigo to make sure there are 7 colors rather than 6. Today, indigo is not a standard color term in practical use; people talk about indigo only as part of ROYGBIV. Blue and violet are easy to distinguish and should naturally be separate. Can you reveal the citation that indigo is a real color name, not just a name that people use when talking about ROYGBIV?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Re:Kosovo stub cat
Hi Koafv, you wrote - Can you direct me to where there was any discussion about stub sorting in reference to this undo... not directly, since the discussions have it occurred considerable time ago (and numerous archives back - and with dial-up, it would take me forever to find them). But you have my word on it that the edit-warring has opccurred in the past and as such this matter has been discussed before. This is the reason why (a) Kosovo stub categories have not in general fed into Serbian ones, and (b) why upmerged Kosovo templates do not in general feed into Serbian categories either (check {{Kosovo-bio-stub}} for an example). I know from my monthly tallies of geo-stubs that Kosovo-related geo-stubs were shuffled in and out of the Serbia geography stub category over the course of many months by editors whose views on the subject were either pro- or anti- the concept of Kosovo as part of Serbia.
FWIW, I've found some comments referring to the issue here and here Grutness...wha? 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to rush you, but now that Net Applications' numbers are out for the whole quarter, your image can be updated. I actually went to the Clabberhead site you used, and played around with it. But I haven't replaced the image myself, since you might want to save a copy of your old image, and the legend at the bottom apparently isn't part of the Google API, but something you added. Anyway, here is the resulting URL:
And updated legend:
Couple of things I noticed:
- Not completely sure what font size you used for the chart title, up above I use 15.
- Dimensions of 450x460 appeared to yield the results closest to yours.
- The site requires you to enter a label field, but your image doesn't use Google's labels, so I assumed you clipped them off the URL. If you need them, "&chl=Internet+Explorer|Firefox|Safari|Opera|Netscape|Other", and adjust the width/height ratio accordingly.
- An oddity about the URL generated by the site is that it changes the numbers you entered into percentages of 100. That is, if you enter "10" and "5" as your values, it changes that to "66.66" and "33.33". It knocked .01 off each browser number, so that 73.81 became 73.80, and so on. Up above, I've restored the original values.
I'm not sure exactly what you did to create the legend. I'm sure I could figure out how to do something like it, but I'll just let you do it. If it weren't for the legend hard-coded into the image, the proportions are similar enough that you could probably get away with "cheating," and just updating the numbers in the caption.
You may have noticed the template recommending that the current image be converted from PNG to SVG. That would probably require something more than MS Paint :). --Groggy Dice T | C 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"I do not want to have an endless edit war over this..."
Coming from the king of 3RR violations (quite an impressive rap sheet you've got), I find that very hard to believe. I've explained more than once why the title should remain as is, yet your behavior (reverting without asking "WHY" initially) served to exacerbate the situation. BGC (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- If there is no conflict, as you say, then remove the 3RR. BGC (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Template: The Beatles
You should be informed that since 1962 when Ringo Starr joined The Beatles, that the group has always been listed as John Lennon (who started the band which eventually became The Beatles), Paul McCartney who joined about a year later, George Harrison who earned his membership from his guitar playing and Ringo Starr who completed the lineup after landing the group landed their recording contract with Parlophone. They are always listed in the order they joined the group and NEVER in alphabetical order. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Order If you are including The Quarrymen then you would certainly include Stuart Sutcliffe prior to Ringo. If you're not listing Beatles members by the order they joined, then what order are you using? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stu left before Ringo joined. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly But he joined before him. If you're listing them in the order they joined, then do that. If not, then don't. That makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the chronology: John started The Quarrymen in 1956. Paul joined the group in 1957. George joined the group in 1958. Stu and Pete joined the group in that order in 1960, the year they adopted the name The Beatles. Stu left the group in 1961, Pete was sacked and replaced by Ringo in 1962. If you want the full chronology, see The Beatles' line-ups. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I know. I've responded on the apporpriate talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the chronology: John started The Quarrymen in 1956. Paul joined the group in 1957. George joined the group in 1958. Stu and Pete joined the group in that order in 1960, the year they adopted the name The Beatles. Stu left the group in 1961, Pete was sacked and replaced by Ringo in 1962. If you want the full chronology, see The Beatles' line-ups. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly But he joined before him. If you're listing them in the order they joined, then do that. If not, then don't. That makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stu left before Ringo joined. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reported this issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
John Paul George and Ringo. 'Nuff said.--andreasegde (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, the FIRST damned time you changed the template. Go back and check EVERY Beatles biography, if you don't believe me, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. You're wasting time for everyone involved. (Changing all those "the"s the other week was bad enough.) Your argument about Sutcliffe is irrelevant; he was not only long-gone when the Beatles first became famous... he'd been dead almost a year. When fans and the press asked who the "leader" was, the lot fell to Lennon, who STARTED the band. Zephyrad (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- What? What do these biographies have to do with style issues on Wikipedia? What does their fame have to do with the orders the members joined? You keep on contradicting yourself by saying that you want to list them in the order they joined and then not doing so. Why would the "leader" of the band come first in collating the members? (And I find it suspect that John was the "leader" of The Beatles.) Why should I be convinced of anything by any of this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply
What do these biographies have to do with style issues on Wikipedia?
- Uh, a little thing called NAMING CONVENTIONS, for one. Perhaps you should contact every author of every biography, and let them ALL know they're wrong, if you are so convinced.
What does their fame have to do with the orders the members joined?
- What is the point of this question? I was answering your "argument" about where Sutcliffe "belongs" in the lineup. (I was not aware the members joined any "orders", other than the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, but I don't think that's what you meant.)
You keep on contradicting yourself by saying that you want to list them in the order they joined and then not doing so.
- If you are addressing me personally, please show me where I "contradict" myself in such a way, "wanting" to so list them ... and then "not doing so". If you are addressing your respondents generally... likewise.
Why would the "leader" of the band come first in collating the members?
- This is too laughable to even answer... other than to ask what your issue is, with putting the "leader"'s name first.
(And I find it suspect that John was the "leader" of The Beatles.)
- Please detail your suspicions, and their bases... preferably after you've gone and actually read some of the aforementioned bios. Side One of The Beatles' Story recaps how Lennon became the "official leader" of the group — since he started it. (To be fair, I believe that record actually does name Harrison first at one point... but it's one unique reference, amongst countless others that go the other way, and there is a group chant of "Ringo! John! Paul! George!" later in the program. I wouldn't call either one gospel.) True, "leader" was largely a nominal title, but when trouble came, the lot typically fell to Lennon to deliver bad news, or deal with unpleasantness first, as he explained himself in Lennon Remembers. I'll finish with a quote from Skywriting by Word of Mouth: "I started the band. I disbanded it." None of the other members ever contradicted this, and each acknowledged Lennon unequivocally as the band's founder.
Why should I be convinced of anything by any of this?
- Fine, don't be. Just keep telling yourself you're right, and forty-five years of pop history and journalism are wrong, if it makes you feel better. But don't say I didn't warn you (more than once), should heaps of Wikimanure get flung your way. You've managed to draw the ire of the Beatles WikiProject members, and more than one individual editor, not to mention make the list of Lamest edit wars. Congratulations — two years' worth of the "t" vs. "T" affair didn't even accomplish that. Zephyrad (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Pop history? What does forty-five years of pop history have to do with style issues in an encyclopedia? How is any of that relevant, regardless of whether or not it's true? It takes two (or more) to tango, so anyone else involved should be congratulated equally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are in a constant state of denial and you're not reading these messages correctly so I will list the proper order again. John started The Quarrymen in 1956. Paul joined The Quarrymen in 1957. George joined The Quarrymen in 1958. The group became The Beatles in 1960. Ringo joined The Beatles in 1962. It has always and WILL always be John, Paul George and Ringo in that order. You stated that it takes two (or more) to tango. But in reality, you're staging a one-man war against the entire Beatle Wikipedia community and you will certainly regret your actions as you are surrounded by a large group of Beatle mavens who would suffocate you.Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Order You're the one in flux - either you add them in the order they joined or you don't. Either you count members of The Quarrymen as The Beatles or you don't. You're doing both, so consequently, you're doing neither. You clearly don't even have an interest in writing like a mature adult, since you're writing out sarcastic crutch words and calling alphabetical order "laughable." I am not afraid of being smothered by mavens of Beatles fans. If I wanted to make an argument that Paul was the "leader" of The Beatles, I could, but that would have no bearing on the order in which members of a group are listed in an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are only talking about the members when the group was famous. Stu and Pete have nothing to do with this discussion. Do you want to see who the antagonist is? Look in the mirror. Everyone else in the discussion would say the same thing to you. So please acquiesce before a Wikipedia administrator who also happens to be a Beatle Wiki editor enters the fray and make you regret your changes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fame? Why would fame make any differences in style matters? How is that relevant to collation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Naming convention, mentioned previouly above, which you have conveniently ignored to continue your argument. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- What? What does this have to do with anything? Don't you realize that alphabetical order is itself a naming convention - probably the most widely-used and non-controversial one in the world (other than with Beatle mavens, I suppose.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- More evidence at [1] via Google. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence? Evidence of what? I never disputed that "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" will have more Google hits than different collations of those names, did I? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is the undisputed collation, except by you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence? Evidence of what? I never disputed that "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" will have more Google hits than different collations of those names, did I? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- More evidence at [1] via Google. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- What? What does this have to do with anything? Don't you realize that alphabetical order is itself a naming convention - probably the most widely-used and non-controversial one in the world (other than with Beatle mavens, I suppose.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Naming convention, mentioned previouly above, which you have conveniently ignored to continue your argument. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fame? Why would fame make any differences in style matters? How is that relevant to collation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- We are only talking about the members when the group was famous. Stu and Pete have nothing to do with this discussion. Do you want to see who the antagonist is? Look in the mirror. Everyone else in the discussion would say the same thing to you. So please acquiesce before a Wikipedia administrator who also happens to be a Beatle Wiki editor enters the fray and make you regret your changes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Order You're the one in flux - either you add them in the order they joined or you don't. Either you count members of The Quarrymen as The Beatles or you don't. You're doing both, so consequently, you're doing neither. You clearly don't even have an interest in writing like a mature adult, since you're writing out sarcastic crutch words and calling alphabetical order "laughable." I am not afraid of being smothered by mavens of Beatles fans. If I wanted to make an argument that Paul was the "leader" of The Beatles, I could, but that would have no bearing on the order in which members of a group are listed in an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are in a constant state of denial and you're not reading these messages correctly so I will list the proper order again. John started The Quarrymen in 1956. Paul joined The Quarrymen in 1957. George joined The Quarrymen in 1958. The group became The Beatles in 1960. Ringo joined The Beatles in 1962. It has always and WILL always be John, Paul George and Ringo in that order. You stated that it takes two (or more) to tango. But in reality, you're staging a one-man war against the entire Beatle Wikipedia community and you will certainly regret your actions as you are surrounded by a large group of Beatle mavens who would suffocate you.Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Pop history? What does forty-five years of pop history have to do with style issues in an encyclopedia? How is any of that relevant, regardless of whether or not it's true? It takes two (or more) to tango, so anyone else involved should be congratulated equally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- No For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica, but what do they know about making encyclopedias, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
My dear Ladies and Gentlemen, is there anything more productive we could do than argue about something that is cemented in concrete? Please, let us bring more articles to GA standard; which means actually writing things, and referencing them properly, as that is the main aim. Talking about whether John, Paul, George, and Ringo should be so named (or not) is a waste of our valuable time. Please pick up your editing shovels and get to work, and realise that such minor details should be left to lesser mortals who take an interest in such things. Stop arguing, and start working...--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source for Image:ROC Vatican City Locator.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ROC Vatican City Locator.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Eliade
When you have the time, check out the discussion here. Khoikhoi 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding albums categories to discographies`
Hey, I'm curious as to why you've included various bands' discographies into a category of that band's albums? Wouldn't that be incorrect categorisation, because a category of albums is meant only for album articles? Just wanted clarification, thanks. indopug (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- But a discography finds place in Category:<Bandname> anyway (is supposed to, at least), so why include it in a subcategory too? If you want a handy link at Category Band albums to the discography, you could edit the category and add a link. indopug (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, interesting. I guess it's fine with me when there isn't a parent band category. Thanks for clarifying, indopug (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time
Hello I was wondering if there was any way to get the list on wikipedia. This list is critical to boxings history. Maybe there is some way I could contact the Ring magazine which made the list and they could give permission for its use please help in this problem thank you. Reallmmablogger (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response Koavf. It is a shame that it can not be placed on wikipedia for fans that wish to learn more about boxing's rich history especially since the sport is on the verge on dying. Thank you for the help. Reallmmablogger (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories
20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Mountdrayton (talk)Why are you deleting categories, inserting redundant ones, and blanking at least one page? I don't understand the meaning of this. Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mountdrayton"
Let us look at what I have actually done. I began with Conscientious Objectors, and more specifically British COs, a major concern of mine on which I have been working for some thirty years. When I first entered Wikipedia I found that British COs were, apparently randomly, categorised under three different heads: COs generally, worldwide; British COs; and English COs. On the one hand, it was clear that there was no point in having a specific British CO category if some were then randomly selected out for a general worldwide category. On the other hand, since there is no legal definition of 'English' as distinct from 'British', and British law on conscription and conscientious objection has applied equally throughout Britain, it was equally clear that there was no point in randomly selecting out some for a putative English category.
I therefore painstakingly gathetred into the British category all the British COs who had strayed into the geberal and English categories, leaving the English category temporarily empty pending its deletion. Before long, someone noticed its empty state, and asked whether there was any purpose in retaining it. I explained the history, and the other person, no-one else having intervened, deleted it.
In the meantime, I had, again painstakingly, allocated the category to further biographical articles, as appropriate. I then found that someone had resurrected the putative 'English' category (thereby completely ignoring the previous open discussion and its conclusion), and again randomly selected out some British names to tranfer to it. The same person had also created two entirely new categories of putative 'Scottish' and 'Welsh' COs, and randomly selected out some nams to transfer to them.
The immediate effect of that exercise was (1) to create additional work for anyone, such as myself, wanting a simple overview of British COs, by requiring the opening and scanning of four lists rather than one; and (2) to imply an entirely false and misleading dichotomy in principle between the four lists. (There is, of course, an essential dichotomy, for example, between lists of British COs and American COs, since the law and practice are different.) Having given the matter further and careful thought, I decided that I would concede that to some degree Scottish and Welsh culture and nationalisms influenced some COs, and that, if some Wikipedians are exercised about that, those lists could stand, but as part-duplicates of the overall British list, not as strange supplements to it. Since the same argument in no way applies to any putative English category, there is obviously no case for it.
I have, therefore, again painstakingly, added all British names back to the British category, once again deleted the utterly pointless 'English' category, but left the putative Scottish and Welsh categories - with such anomalies as that Emrys Hughes cetainly conscientiously objected in Wales, but he is chiefly remembered as an MP in Scotland - for those for whom it may seem important, but as part-duplicates of the British list.
I have been attempting a similar exercise with the British pacifists category, which has different complexities, one point, in particular, being the need to avoid a common misconception that terms such as 'conscientious objector', 'pacifist', 'peace activist' and 'anti-war activist' are virtually interchangeable.
I have not created any new category, much less a redundant one, so I am at a loss to understand what you mean by your question why I am supposedly "inserting new ones".
Many years ago I studied formal logic. I hope I have put it to some use. I await your response.
Mountdrayton (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks I also studied philosophy at university and earlier today I was reading a text on logic; I hope that is useful as well.
- First off, let me clarify what might be a misunderstanding on your part: these ethnic categories are just that - they refer to a nationality of an individual, not his citizenship, per se. For instance, Albert Einstein is in several "American X," "German X," "Jewish X," and "Swiss X" categories. Clearly, the American ones only refer to citizenship, the Jewish ones only to ethnicity, and the German and Swiss ones to some combination of the two.
- Personally, I am a bit put-out by the very notion of "British X" categories, but clearly if someone is a "Scottish X" he is necessarily a "British X" by virtue of the fact that Scotland is in Britain. As long as "Scottish X" categories exist, they are more particularly and precise than "British X" categories and should be used. I see no reason why someone should be a "British X" and a "Scottish X" since the latter is a subcategory of the former. (Should he also be a "European X?" Simply an "X?") This is my point about redundant categories. I honestly do not understand why you wrote "inserting new ones" on my talk as I never alleged this of you.
- Finally, if you want a category deleted, removing all its members and blanking it is precisely what not to do. You can - and should - start a discussion about it. If you make the following type of allegation to an admin: "X category is empty, it's a waste." One of two things may happen: 1.) he will be diligent and discover why it is empty (if it is empty because you emptied it and blanked it without discussion, he will not delete it) or 2.) he will notice that it is empty and delete it on good faith that someone didn't come along and empty it himself without any discussion or consensus. If you do want everyone removed from "English/Scottish/Welsh X" categories and have them deleted, that is fine and well, but you should seek consensus first and follow what it dictates.
- Please respond on my talk if you have more to say on the topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It seems that the clue to your own self-created problem is your statement, "Personally, I am a bit put-out by the very notion of 'British X' categories". You do not attempt to justify this private prejudice, but go on to canvass your predilection for "ethnic categories" as allegedly being "more particularly [sic] and precise than 'British' categories". This completely ignores the gravamen of my original response to you, viz that "British conscientious objectors" is a category capable of precise definition - "persons identified within Wikipedia who were subject to British military concription and conscientiously objected thereto", whereas "English/Welsh/Scottish conscientious objectors" categories are incapable of precise definition: on the one hand, there have never been any laws, regulations or conventions on conscription or conscientious objection applying only to England, Wales or Scotland; and, on the other hand, there is no legal, or even quasi-legal, definition of English, Welsh or Scottish "nationality". It is true that for many purposes (but not military), Scotland has a different legal system from England, and there are now some differences in Wales, but their regimes affect all those resident or domiciled at any relevant time in those parts of Britain, and have no reference to "nationality".
Even if one attempts to attribute a notional "nationality", how does one define it? By birth? If one happens to be born in Wales, but is immediately removed to England and never returns, is one always Welsh? By parentage? What if one parent clains to be English and the other Scottish? By residence? What if one moves between all parts of Britain? How do you defend your claim of particularity and precision throughout this maze? I note, moreover, that you have made no attempt to divide US COs into potentially 50 different subcategories of Alabama COs, Alaska COs, Arkansas COs etc, nor the Australian COs into New South Wales, Queensland etc.
Conversely, your postulation of a single category of "European COs" would be as pointless as a single category of "North American" COs, because in neither continent has there ever been a single system of conscription or conscientious objection.
I note also that you make no reference to COs' own attitide towards "nationality". During both British conscription periods, COs organised on an all-Britain basis. In my own current work on COs, involving correspondence with some hundreds of them (including some in Wikipedia whom you have chosen to define as Scottish or Welsh) and their friends and relatives, I have not come across a single one who has objected to the collective terminology. The same has applied in my correspondence and discussions with other writers and workers on Britsh COs. Perhaps your own experience has been different, in which case it would be helpful for you to describe it.
For all these reasons I maintain my position that the most useful, and the only precisely definable, category within the parameters under discussion is "British COs". If in the course of your own work you find it helpful to select some of them for additional sub-categories of Scottish and Welsh COs, then so be it, but let them also remain as specifically British COs, even if only for the reasons that, as I have stated, there is (a), an inevitable imprecision about such categories; and (b), to exclude such persons from the main British category would misleadingly imply a qualitative difference in CO legislation and/or experience. As to putative redundancy, therefore,if there be any, it must relate to your insistance on a necessarily imprecise additional sub-category rather than a precise main category.
As to discussion, there was, indeed, an opening for discussion of deletion of the original English CO category, and the consensus was deletion. There was no discussion of re-opening the English category, and no discussion of opening de novo Scottish and Welsh categories. So, who is setting an example to whom?
Mountdrayton (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- They are called subcats - most categories have them. You have no right to empty categories and then get them deleted. Also, ou can not remove the English subcat whilst leaving the Welsh & Scottish subcats intact. I don't see what your problem is - no is saying they are not British.
- Agreed with Koavf and 92.12.72.87. Logically there may well be something to Mountdrayton's view - though personally I think this kind of quasi-legal analysis is pretty pointless as Wikipedia is not a logically self-consistent system. The bottom line is, it's just not the convention in the topic area of English people. If someone's English, they go in a [[Category:English whatevers]], not [[Category:British whatevers]].
- The fact that a number of editors are reverting Mountdrayton's changes of "English" to "British" ought to be a hint that this view is going against consensus, and the best answer (as said above) is to raise it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving of "Hots On for Nowhere"
Hey Koavf,
I noticed you moved the "Hots On for Nowhere" article to "Hots on for Nowhere". I just want to inform you that not capitalizing "On" in this example is actually incorrect, as "On" is not being used as a preposition. If the title was "Hot on Nowhere", then "on" would be used as a preposition. However, in "Hots On for Nowhere", the word "for" is serving as the preposition, not "On." Sorry about being nitpicky, but it can be quite overwhelming renaming the same articles repeatedly.
Thanks, Xnux the Echidna 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- In this example, "Hots On" is used as an adjective, "for" is being used as the preposition (and therefore is the only word not capitalized), and "Nowhere" is the object. Xnux the Echidna 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- What does it mean? Shoot, I'm not even sure about that one; Zeppelin doesn't even use the phrase in the lyrics. From what I've gathered, the phrase might mean "searching hard for someplace, but unable to find it", as the song is about Robert Plant's frustration with Jimmy Page and Peter Grant[1]. But that's what I think. Xnux the Echidna 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Indianapolis, Indiana in the American Civil War
Hello, Koavf! Couple of questions regarding the above page move:
- Your edit summary stated "per main" — what does that mean, main what?
- Shouldn't it be Indianapolis, Indiana, in the American Civil War, with a comma after Indiana?
- This is completely out of sync with the other <CITY> in the American Civil War articles; are the others going to be moved, too, or is there going to be an inconsistency with good ol' Indianapolis?
Please respond here (on your talk page) and I'll watchlist. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Your questions are well-taken:
- The main article that I have in mind is "Indianapolis, Indiana;" if an article is named "X" it seems reasonable that all subsequent daughter articles of it would be named "Economy of X" or "X in the 1950s" or what have you.
- I don't see why there would be a second comma... If the name was "Indianapolis in the American Civil War" not "Indianapolis, in the American Civil War" I don't see why adding ", Indiana" would change that. I'm confused by why you ask.
- As a necessary consequent of my first answer, it makes sense to me to change all of them. Personally, I'm focusing on Indianapolis articles right now (moving and CfD'ing.)
- Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, after poking around on MoS, I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United_States which states that 29 US cities, including Indianapolis, do not require their state modifier. So, using this as a guideline, I am going to revert the page move.
- Regarding the commas, states are set off by commas (As in "I have lived in Indianpolis, Indiana, all of my life."). Same thing for years (As in, "I left on July 28, 2008, for Indianapolis."). Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure Make sense to me - all these Indianapolis moves should be undone then to remove ", Indiana."
- Where did you get this idea about states needing commas? Cities don't? Sovereign states/countries don't? Sub-level administrations (e.g. provinces, territories, U. S. states) do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Comma (punctuation)#Grammar, #11, "A comma is written in a geographical reference between the city and the state and again following the state." But, I got it from Harbrace College Handbook. BTW, sorry you had to revert all of your moves, but at least you took it in good spirits. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- All's well Thank you for informing me. The comma rule is nonsense to me; I'll see if WP:MOS has anything to say about it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Comma (punctuation)#Grammar, #11, "A comma is written in a geographical reference between the city and the state and again following the state." But, I got it from Harbrace College Handbook. BTW, sorry you had to revert all of your moves, but at least you took it in good spirits. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"Indianapolis" categories
Nothing in the naming convention says where the article has to be located. The current consensus is that nothing is going to be moved to city only in the US. This is the result after several requests to have articles moved. If you want to start another waste of time on this topic feel free to try, but you will upset parties on both sides with a proposal that will not succeed. If you have questions, you can dig through the archives on the previous requests. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I would leave the CfD request to rename to Indianapolis, Indiana open. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have replied on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have opened a discussion on Template Talk:Nobel icon. For what it's worth, I agree with HuskyHuskie. Zaian (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent "Women in..." article moves
I don't object to your attempting to standardize various "Women in..." article titles and it looks like an improvement. As an FYI, you might want to discuss the matter with a WikiProject associated with these types of articles, like WP:RELIGION and/or WP:GS, before making major changes like renaming articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:68.92.204.87
This user keeps deleting a section in the talk:North Africa page. I warned him earlier on his talk page, saw he blanked it again, reverted his vandalism then went to his page to warn him again and he deleted the warning. How do you deal with this? Chexmix53 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then what is the normal procedure for a user blanking their talk pages? Do you just report them?Chexmix53 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- But using talk pages is a way of keeping track of how many times someone has been warned. There is no rule about not deleting your warnings? I thought it was against wikirules to delete your talk page contents... Chexmix53 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard or Rick Wright
Hi, maybe you can help me, since you have made some changes to the Rick Wright page to change his name from Richard to Rick. The page was renamed from Richard to Rick a couple of days ago. Do you know of any instance where he has used the name Rick instead of Richard professionally? He may be Rick to his friends, but I can't find any album credits where hs uses that name. I do realize he has a fan site (linked from the article), but neither the fansite nor the current WP article mentions him changing his professional name. On the fansite, the name Richard cannot be found anywhere. But that site does use the same photo that is used in the WP article. So the rename might have been done by the fans who maintain that website, and the insistence in calling him Rick could be just one fan's POV.
I posted an objection to the article rename on Wright's talk page, and on the Pink Floyd WikiProject talk page, where I also complained about other recent article renames which are even more dubious, but I'm getting no replies. These renames are making me crazy! Any help, or pros or cons to my objections will be appreciated. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good point You know, I had always seemed to recall "Rick," but I looked at the liner notes to Pulse today, and they read "Richard." I may well have been in error. What is most relevant is not his professional name, but his most common name, which may well be "Richard" (Google on Richard and Google on Rick.) You have a good point, and maybe it should be renamed... I'm sorry for any headaches this may have caused you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wish I had some recent albums to check. The WP article for Pulse says Rick, so I guess we can't depend on our own articles for checking. But even so, articles for more recent albums: Echoes, Oh By the Way, and the live Wall all say Richard, and there's a good chance the name was copied from the way it appears on those albums. I'm still trying to get some replies on the WikiProject talk page especially, and have pointed to my post there from a few other talk pages. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Red Colony
I don't doubt that it probably warrants deletion in its current state, but I'm going to continue removing your speedy tags; there is no possible way this meets any speedy category ("the largest online database" is a clear assertion of notability, for a start). Take it to AfD if you want rid of it, although given that it's survived for two years I suspect it'll end as a "no consensus". – iridescent 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |