User talk:Koavf/Archive016
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will probably respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.
Bahai manifestations of God
Just a quick response. I'll certainly be happy to take a second look at the debate. Obviously I feel reasonably content with the closure, but there's no harm in reviewing things. For the time being the deletion of the category has been placed on hold. I am not able to deal with this immediately, but as soon as I have some free time I'll re-examine the nomination and see if the debate suggests another outcome. --Xdamrtalk 06:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right then, I've taken another look at the debate. In judging how to close a debate, weight of numbers is not the decisive factor. On the other hand it is most certainly something which needs to be looked at and taken into account. By my reading we had a 7-3 split in favour of deletion. That said, it is informed consensus that the closing admin tries to identify. This means factoring in relevant policy arguments, assessing their strength in terms of each side of the debate, and coming to a final conclusion taking into account broader en.wiki norms.
- Basically, from my reading, the debate boiled down to two key arguments. On the keep side was the fact that these manifestations are significant in the Bahá'í faith. I'm no expert in the area, but I have no difficulty accepting that fact. On the other hand, the delete view seemed to chiefly centre around the fact that the Bahá'í view of these various deities etc is not one of their key, defining characteristics. To that end WP:UNDUE was cited. I'm sure you followed the arguments closely enough to identify this key dividing line yourself. Factoring in the weight of numbers, I came to the conclusion that deletion was to be preferred. There is no question that there should be an article on this topic, but in terms of this Cfd debate I was persuaded that the Bahá'í view of these various deities, given the relatively small size of the faith, was not one of their defining characteristics.
Template state
The state = {{{state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>}}} sets autocollapse as the default, but allows each instance of the template's use to specify another state, by piping, for instance state=collapsed. Sach (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Categories
I haven't had time to do much more than a cursory check of your contributions, so at present I don't feel comfortable lifting the ban, especially as it has only been in place a short time. I suggest we review it in the New Year. I'm also concerned that you mark nearly every edit as minor, which conflicts with best practise. Please ensure you have not placed a tick in the checkbox in your editing preferences which reads "Mark all edits minor by default". Edits such as this and this do not meet the definition of a minor edit. Hiding T 09:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion
Please note that I have nominated Category:Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for deletion. Please feel free to add your comments. I would suggest that articles which are specific to Gandhi, such as Seven Blunders of the World, are moved to Category:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Category:Low-emissions locomotives
I have nominated Category:Low-emissions locomotives for deletion. Please join the discussion here. Arsenikk (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not just recreate deleted material. I have however been kind to you and nominated your category to a name change instead of speedy deletion for recreation of deleted content. Please at least join in on the discussions instead of recreating deleted content. The renaming discussion can be found here. Arsenikk (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about being so harsh and not seeing all the facts. I just saw recreation of deleted content, which perhaps you can understand makes me a bit confused, since I though you had just recreated the article and was just ignoring the recent CfD. Arsenikk (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Arabic text
Justin, do you know someone who can provide the Arabic script on this badge? File:Scouts de Sahara.png Thank you! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Heads
Just noticed that you had requested a talk page notification -- I responded yesterday here. Hope that clarifies things! -Pete (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of left-handed sportspeople
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of left-handed sportspeople. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left-handed sportspeople. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Discographies by decade
Category:Discographies by decade, 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.
- I know you put a lot of work in putting all the discography categories together. I'm not entirely against this categorization but I believe it's ill-defined as it seems any artist from any period of time with a discography page who has an album released in a particular decade will get categorized under that decade's discography category. It automatically overpopulates the later decade categories because of record companies continual release of artist compilations and so forth. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Creating a redlink
Whoops. :) Simply forgot the |. I'll redo them. Correctly. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Your moves of pages
Hi, you recently moved the articles Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac-Americans. I believe that was inappropriate, since that is how the people is refered to as in the official census in respective country. Please, see the history of the articles and the discussions that have already been held in the topic before you make such drastic moves. The TriZ (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, on a ad-hoc bases. The TriZ (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Koavf, I think you should take actions against this user, since he has played this little game for years. We went through all the Wiki-steps to finally solve this issue and it the decision has already been made. Please move all the pages back. Iraqi (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What a utterly suprise that you would show up. Seriously, I'm shocked!
- The pages were moved by a wikipedia admin with far more experience than both of you. I will continue to move the pages back and that will be in accordance to wikipedia policies. The TriZ (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
message at AN
I left you a message here. Please take into account my advice about making reports at those specialized noticeboards instead of going to the general board. My experience has been that those noticeboards are much more useful than AN or ANI for solving problems quickly. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- hehe, yeah, it's quite overhelming. I have been here for a long time and I have seen how some of those noticeboards were proposed and implemented, so it's easier for me to know where to go for help. You don't need to know all the policies and guidelines, just the ones that apply to your situation. But there so many pages that it's easy to get lost if nobody points you to the exact page that you need to use.
- By the way, if Peppylemew gets blocked for a time, and he reverts again just as soon as he is unblocked, then you can try to make a report in WP:AIV, or you can go back to WP:AN3 and make a new report. Make sure to point that he reverted after for blocked for making those same reverts, this way admins can understand why he's being disruptive. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, you are supposed to notice the editor when you make a edit warring report. I almost forgot to notify Peppylemew.... --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- The report is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:Peppylemew_reported_by_User:Enric_Naval_.28Result:_24_h.29. If Peppylemew starts reverting again, then make a new report and link to the old one. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Sufjan Steven's Illinois
I have to disagree with you about my edit of the article on Sufjan Steven's album, Illinois. I read through the entire 'Thematic Elements" section before deleting it in order to see if there was anything that was salvageable, unfortunately absolutely nothing was cited (which is sufficient grounds for deletion, given that the requests for citations were rather old) and everything appeared to be original research (indeed, even the title of the section indicated original research). Moreover, the person responsible for that section had posted comments on the article's discussion page admitting that the entire section was basically their original research and asking it if was appropriate. With the original author of the section admitting that it was all essentially their own original research and with the complete and utter lack of citations I think it was perfectly justifiable to delete the entire section (even more so given how long ago it had been written without ever having citations added...). If you disagree then feel free to look back through the edit and see if there is anything you find salvageable, though please try to use citations! I'm not going to make a big deal about it since it's just an article about an album, I just don't think the section was appropriate! Thanks for your concern! The Way (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to add a bit more support to my argument, the person who authored the section I deleted wrote the following on the discussion page: "I'm a little scared to add this, and it's totally original research, but I'm actually rather proud of it." I think that provides the proverbial nail in the coffin. The Way (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Koavf, I'm a little confused about why you moved this page. Its original title, "Works of Maya Angelou", was, I believe, more accurate because the list includes everything the author's done in her career. This is more than just books and poetry; it also includes her movie and play appearances. Was there some administrative decision made that makes the movement appropriate? I'm not one, so I wouldn't know about it. Thanks. --Christine (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response! If you wouldn't mind, could you please handle this? I'm not sure how to do it, and you'll probably be quicker at it, anyway. Appreciate it. --Christine (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
List of Turkish films: A-Z
Hi. I moved your WP:RM of List of Turkish films: A-Z to the contested section. I'm not sure if you're aware there is already a chronological list at List of Turkish films, or if so, what you wanted to do about that article. Station1 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard moved the request from WP:RM to Talk:List of Turkish films: A-Z. Since you put the merge request tags on the articles, I just closed up that move request. I assume that's OK with you - if not, just undo my edit there. A merge is fine with me, btw. Station1 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
| Please accept this invitation to join the Buccaneers WikiProject, dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Simply click here to accept! |
Christian history timeline diagram
The claim that EN wikipedia does not use "Roman Catholic Church" in ambiguous or multi-church contexts is incorrect, as is the claim that the article Catholic Church does not exist. Particularly bad is the label Catholicism you have put on the image. Can you please restore it as it was, and leave it alone until and unless a consensus emerges? Please respond here; I'll watch your page and I find it easier to understand conversations when they are all in one place. Tb (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I figured out (mostly) how to revert the change on Commons, though I didn't see how to get something in the "comments" field of the history, so I put a fuller explanation on the talk page at Commons. Since the discussion is ongoing on the file page here, it should continue here. If you are interested in the question, please join the discussion, but please don't make the controversial edit until some sort of consensus has been reached in favor of a change. (As for the dotted line for restorationism, I have no opinion about that one.) Tb (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, but I don't have the time or interest to get into this. I reverted back the Restorationism thing as it's frankly a bit silly and it had already been mentioned on the Wikipedia file talk with no one arguing against it. I honestly don't care if it's "Roman Catholicism" or "Catholicism." I'd be happy to give my input if I really had anything to add, but I don't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem; your interest in maintaining the file is valuable and much appreciated. Since you do so so beautifully, I will be sure to ask your assistance in a fix if we can agree on one amenable to all parties. As for the Restorationism link, as I said, I have no personal opinion, and I think your reading of the consensus on that one looks correct. Tb (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
MGM
The name "MGM" doesn't have dashes in between its name. They've always had hyphens. See the MGM copyright on its site. It says "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc." King Shadeed 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Aminatou Haidar
Hi, I'm bit disappointed you've chosen to revert to the revision that has multiple quality issues - contradictions, non-neutral language, outdated information, blogspot as a source etc. Would you mind too take one more look at this version [1], and indicate what exactly is wrong with it? Thanks. M0RD00R (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I that case would you support moving on from this revision [2] which has website you've mentioned included?. M0RD00R (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories
I did not ignore your last message,I responded here. I'm currently having computer issues at home so my time accessing Wikipedia is limited. That said, I fail to understand why you are unable to create articles. I haven't the time to review the situation right now because of the computer issues, so I suggest you raise the issue at the admin's noticeboard. I would hope you would accept that I did reply to your earlier message, as demonstrated above, and so retract your accusations against me. My general feeling is that you should continue editing as you have been. Hiding T 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Heavy Metal titles
FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Heavy_Metal_titles. You had previously blanked this category and tagged it for speedy deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Regions of Asia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Regions of Asia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of Asia. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently...
You are a child. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I feel I am aware of the partial ridiculousness of your topic ban, leaving me a message like this is a bad idea. Though it isn't (AIUI) a violation of your ban, I doubt it reflects well on you (from the point of view of those who brought about your ban); and though I don't think my actions would be any different had you not left this message (I have a watchlist), contacting me in this fashion can only serve to dilute the perceived integrity of any action I take.
I know there has been much propaganda injected into Wikipedia related to Western Sahara, and that the administrators have done little about it, even when it has been formally called to their attention. I empathize, but please do not attempt to prompt me.
¦ Reisio (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |