Jump to content

User talk:Koavf/Archive027

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An icon of a file folder
User talk:Koavf archives
001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb
002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb
003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb
004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb
005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb
006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb
007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb
008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb
009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb
010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb
011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb
012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb
013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb
014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb
015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb
016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb
017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb
018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb
019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb
020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb
021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb
022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb
023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb
024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb
025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb
026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb
027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb
028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb
030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb
031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb
032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb
033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb
034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb
035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb
036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb
037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb
038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb
039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb
040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb
041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb
042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb
043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb
044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb
045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb
046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb
047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb
048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb
049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb
050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb
051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb
052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb
053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb
054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb
055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb
056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb
057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb
058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb
059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb
060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb
061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb
Current discussion

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.

By the way, I'm not an admin--once a month, I get a request for admin help. See WP:AN.

Purging pages

Thanks, it works! I appreciate the tip. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney

Hey Justin, I want you to do something for me please, and have a look at this category link (above) and at this arirle link Lennon/McCartney. Being an expert on categories as you are, I want you to fix this up by matching it to the proper appropriate link that they both should be at (i.e. both should either have a dash or a hyphen, but not one or the other). Apparently, Lennon/McCartney was moved to Lennon-McCartney sometime ago, but nothing else was moved with it. Do you understand what I'm saying? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Backstage Pass

Hi Justin! I'm glad to see that you'll be able to make this Backstage Pass event. This past year has really flown by and I know I haven't been in touch enough. I'm looking forward to meeting you, showing you behind the scenes, and getting more organized about Children's Museum-related article updates! I'll be in touch about a week prior to the event with any last minute details, but if you have questions in the meantime just let me know. I am going to Wikimania this year so will not be available the first two weeks of August.

Here's a bit of an update, pulled from what I posted on other talk pages regarding the past year:

While the first year focused on garnering institutional enthusiasm among staff, organizing multiple content donations, and guiding teens in research and article creation, the next year will focus on establishing an E-Volunteer program and more deliberately connecting with local Wikipedians and WikiProjects around the world. You can read a summary of the projects on the museum's blog, or visit the project page. LoriLee (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Western Saharan protests mistake

Hi Koavf, I'm sorry for the mistake I did on the Western Saharan protests article. Of course nobody desires police brutality! Thank you for noticing, I'll pay more attention next time ;) Regards, Zambitious (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Simple reason is templates are always optional on Wikipedia, and even the WP:Album guidelines are inconsistent in their use, saying to use it for duration, but just saying to use prose for dates. My philosophy is if you can write it out without using a template, do so. And as much as I've observed, no one really uses micro-format templates either in music-related or any other type of article--because they aren't required. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but (putting aside that templates are optional and these in particular are specifically not necessary for inclusion articles to meet the FA criteria) inserting microformats in an FA won't necessary assist in their proliferation. To most people, they will just be there, and their presence will not be explained; it's just a non-intuitive template (which is one of my main objections about its use), and its mere presence won't in of itself be all that helpful in publicity terms. A far more beneficial approach to would be for Microformat WP do more to describe/advocate the merits of these templates.
Having thought about this all day, I feel we have gotten on the wrong foot in this and past interactions, and that it's necessary for me to try and rectify that. We're both interested in contributing to Wikipedia (I'm primarily concerned with prose and referencing, while your interest seems to be predominantly in script, formatting, and categorization), and while I disagree with you from time to time, I acknowledge that you do a lot of important things here that most editors aren't too concerned with usually. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, WesleyDodds requested that I comment on this issue here as a contributor to the article. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter, as the difference to me seems small and unnoticeable to most readers. I don't quite see the purpose of microformatting for things like album duration. When there are clear and useful features for it I'd support it, but until that time I'd prefer to just use plain text. It's extremely simple to switch anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we really do come to odds too often without meaning to, and I do apologize. Also, since you brought it up, not always leaving edit summarizes is just a habit of mine; I usually only write them when I feel my edits aren't obvious and need clarification (as edit summaries are encouraged but not mandatory, I'd say about only half of my edits ever have a description). I'm awfully busy at the moment, but it would be nice to find some common ground to work productively together on in order to better establish a dialog between us (say, an R.E.M. album?). As for you most recent point about the templates, without wanting to get back into that debate again before I'm ready to do heavy editing again (I'm busy with my real-world editing job at the moment), my viewpoint comes back to the notion that they aren't mandatory--just because some articles use them doesn't mean every article has to. Consistency is an admirable trait, but I think it's easy for a lot of editors here to forget that Wikipedia actually allows a lot of leeway in how individual articles look from one another, for internal consistency in each page is more important (this also explains why you might see me changing formatting for newly-inserted references in pages quite a bit--it's very important for GA and FA standards that all refs on a single page are formatted consistently in whatever style of formatting that page utilizes). Still, now that you know my overall thoughts on that matter, I should make it clear that it's really not that big a deal for me in the greater scheme of things (something even I occasionally forget!). Fun fact: did you know that even infoboxes aren't mandatory? I don't think anyone told me that until 2008 or so. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin help

Hey there! Can you merge Todos Mis Exitos (to All My Hits Vol.1) and Todos Mis Exitos, Volume 2 (to All My Hits Vol. 2) as they are relevant of each other. And these too?

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Songs by producer

Hi, I note you have created some categories in Category:Songs by producer. I have made a few comments regarding guidance over at WPtalk songs and I’d like to see your comments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, possible request. Is it possible to develop an article Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you?

Look at this version will help you to become a good article look --77.31.79.53 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiLove

SwisterTwister has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Box Cutter (Breaking Bad)

Hey Koavf, my name's Hunter. I saw you had the "inuse" template on Box Cutter (Breaking Bad), which I had started to do some research for in Notepad. It appeared from the history that you hadn't done any work on the article in a few hours, so I removed the tag and have started adding some of my stuff in there. If I'm wrong and you are indeed in there and I am giving you all sorts of edit conflict problems, let me know right away and I'll stop. Otherwise, I'm about to dump a bunch of content in there in the next few minutes. Thanks, and feel free to tweak/edit my stuff! — Hunter Kahn 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Book

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Using rollback on non-vandal talk page comments

I am concerned about the use of rollback on this edit. The previous edit was disruptive (though not clearly intentionally so), but not vandalism. This appeared to be a good faith post to a talk page and it's removal alone would be controversial at best; using rollback appears to me to be outside of what is permitted in the Rollback Guideline and a generally bad idea.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:English-language albums

Why did you remove Category:English-language albums from Tir Na n'Og and Orthodox Celts albums? Ostalocutanje (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu

Hey Koavf, See here, reliable sources of history, the publisher, can you retrieve the sources, the article looks good.--176.44.97.157 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake, sorry. Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

King of Birds (song)‎;

On the discussion page of WPSongs we discussed this very item.

I wrote "That redirects shouldn’t be categorised by producer because most songs are recorded by more than one artist it does suggest that the producer produced ALL versions." to which you replied, "Your point about redirects is a good one that does not apply to albums--several recordings of a song can be released without having been produced by the same person."

Then we get into an some kind of edit war because you have now disagreed with yourself.

Finally, whether there are other versions of the song is something neither of us can prove one way or the other. A negative can never be proved. Would you like to now revert according to what you agreed with?

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Where an article is about a song which has been recorded by and produced by more than one artist the text supports the categorization for instance Act Naturally. However for a redirect there is no text to support such categorization. A redirect that actually has been recorded by 2 different artists could have, in your scenario, Category:Song date, Category:Artist A, Category:Artist B, Category:Producer Y, and Category:Producer Z and it is all so meaningless without the text. And the door is open to many variations of this theme, which producer produced which version of the song?. and if categorization by producer is allowed in redirects it will happen. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
At least you are trying to get me to prove the positive instead of the negative. That's easier, but is there is a reason why a redirect can't be two different artists? I'm not about to trawl through 7000 redirects just to find one, but it's a fair bet there are some.
Furthermore, it is useful to categorise redirects by year, songwriter and artist(s), what's the value for producers - especially self-produced songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And I can't see why you have changed you mind. Seems such waste for you to argue about something we both agreed on a week ago! If you have going to say one thing and then do something else, as you have done on several occasions in the past, little point coming to any sort of agreement with you at any time! As for notability, not relevant, that's why they are redirects in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You have acted in direct contradiction to what you said at WPSongs, as I have quoted at the top of this section. Please read your own talkpage for other examples. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete TfD

For some reason, when you nominated Template:13, you overwrote your nomination for Template:Think Tank. I have removed the tag. If you feel the template should still be deleted, feel free to renominate. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Back From Ashes (album)

According to http://www.myspace.com/backfromashesmusic#!/backfromashesmusic/music/albums/back-from-ashes-16605945, the "F" in "Back From Ashes" is capitalized on both the band name and album name.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Box Cutter

Thanks for the kind words, Justin! I'll take a listen to the podcast as soon as possible and add anything new I find. This was my first work on a Breaking Bad-related article (although I have plans to do more down the road) and it's good to see there's a lot of sources to choose from. By the way, I see that Live Show made GA back in December, but I did want to say that it looks fantastic. I've always been impressed with the 30 Rock coverage on Wikipedia, and I've always tried to emulate it during my work on Parks and Recreation-related articles. — Hunter Kahn 21:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know ThinkBlue, she's a great editor. Thanks again for your comments, and don't hesitate to chime in on future BB articles or shoot me any messages with suggestions or what have you. — Hunter Kahn 21:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Smashing Pumpkins.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

???

Since you are removing the "???" from fields that have them in an album's infobox, would it be ok to change this sentence – "If some details are unknown, leave the section blank or fill it with ??? to make it obvious to other editors that the info is needed" to just "If some details are unknown, leave the section blank" – from Template:Infobox album#Details. It does seem pointless to have those in there at all, so by removing that part of the sentence the practice won't be further encouraged. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of my article Son of Gutbucket

I was perplexed to receive a message about this proposed deletion. I tried to find out what was behind it, but I following all the links contained within the notification simply added to my confusion. In the end I posted a "help" message and received a response from John of Reading which suggested that I get in touch with you.

Apparently the category "Non-notable comp" means that the album is a non-notable compilation. I was referred to the criteria for albums here . However, as far as I can see there is no mention of compilation albums in these criteria. Please point it out to me if I have missed it.

Son of Gutbucket is not so much a compilation as a sampler. To my mind a compilation is a group of more or less well known songs that are brought together because of a common theme. They may be taken form existing albums, or from previously unreleased performances. A sampler is more likely to contain hitherto unknown songs, very often from obscure bands or singers, usually taken from recently or soon to be released albums on the same record label. The record company hopes (or hoped, back in the days when these were a fairly frequent phenomenon) to stimulate sales of the more obscure artists by encouraging sales of the sampler with headline acts. In the case of Son of Gutbucket the well-known bands Creedence Clearwater Revival and Canned Heat had tracks at the start of sides one and two respectively. These hooks would bring in potential listeners to and buyers of the albums sampled further down each side, such as McKenna Mendelson Mainline or Jo-Ann Kelly and Tony McPhee.

For the above reasons, I think it would be inappropriate to delete my article (and by extension the article on the original Gutbucket sampler, which was written by a different contributor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Larter (talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your response. I am not really clear about "significant third-party coverage". Do you mean references like this? Or from within Wikipedia like [[1]]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Larter (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 1, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

copy/pasting pages

Thanks for informing me of the rules and reverting my changes. As it turns out, after further research, my "corrections" were in fact wrong and I was just about to re-correct the changes, but you had already made the fixes. I can't believe how fast you became aware of the situation and corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fane1024 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

a good faith heads-up

Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mego Sonny & Cher Toys since it was relisted? If you haven't I'd be curious as to whether you still think Sonny & Cher Toys is a topic that merits deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. I completely agree the article needs a cruftectomy, and should not contain any material that only references fansites. I just didn't have the heart to do the cruftectomy myself, given the article had clearly been a newbie's labour of love.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Turning off TW notifications for Rod's talkpage

Hi Koavf. Rod is blocked by Arbcom and thus it is unnecessary to template his talk using TW any longer. Maybe turning off the TW notifications would be a good idea in this case. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You can respond here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:This American Life.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Judgement on claims of notability in PROD's

As I am sure you will be aware, PROD criteria is fairly strict; if there is a claim to notability a discussion is needed at AfD to determine whether it can be substantiated before the article is deleted (or not). PROD's are not the place to make judgement on the validity of the claim of notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos of albums and song jackets

Hi Justin, As I'm sure you know, adding the albums' covers isn't too fulfilling, since there's all the red tape you must wade through and then sign your soul away on the rationale page... that being said, sure, I'll help! What the hell... however, you must meet Klaus Hiltscher -- a kind photographer from Germany who has a enormous album and song cover collection who can also help you. (That's not counting all the photos he took that he has allowed us to use. His user name at Flickr is Affendaddy; here's his profile: [2], and as for the album pages, see here in the sets he has: [3] -- I mean, he has 45 album / song jackets just for Cat Stevens alone! Anyway, get in touch with him. As soon as you mention me, I'm sure he could help find things on his site there, though he isn't a Wikipedian (yet) :)) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

Dude - what's the deal with the editing to this page? It's "excessive" of late. It's not needed. Do you disagree? Cheers... Doc talk 06:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cave Rock redirect

Cave Rock is also a Nevada Historical Marker (it's the 226th entry on the page). I don't think we should redirect Cave Rock to a 1960's experimental album. I vote on deleting the redirect. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Backspacer

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to fail it at this time. There were many issues with the article that I believe in good faith could not be fixed within the general seven days. For comments, please see: Talk:Backspacer/GA1. Rp0211 (talk2me) 02:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, you are doing edits by the thousands, alphabetically. You cannot possibly be reading all of the articles you are tagging--what I consider vandalism. You defame the look of every article you place such a tag, well meaning or not. Yes, some might be a true bare link, but others are definitely not. In the speed you are vandalizing these articles, you cannot possibly have any idea, you don't have time to look at what the links go to. So I am asking you to STOP YOUR TAGGING Go back to the articles you have damaged and see where those links actually take you. If it is truly a bare link, identify the problem in the talk page, or better yet, if possible, fix these links yourself. That would be far more productive. Leaving this streak of damage does nothing positive but discredits the work of thousands of editors and the wikipedia project itself. STOP! Trackinfo (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Answering your reply on my talk page: Because of the nature of what you are doing, I hate to even get into specifics because what you are doing is wholesale destruction. You happened to hit two, otherwise unrelated, articles I watch Never Let Go (live) is barely above a stub article about an obscure live album. There are only two sources in the article, both DO take you directly to the source material about that album. Of course, you would have had to click on each link to see that fact. The other is National Lampoon's Animal House, a fairly well known, significant movie. The article has 47 sources in it and has been refined and debated for years. Maybe one or two might be a bare link, in the less than a minute you spent looking at the article (visible in your contributions sequence) you could not have possibly clicked on all 47 sources. I haven't clicked on all 47 YET. Since I noticed that, you have defaced over a thousand articles in less than a day, and several thousand before that. The point being, in your path of vandalism, you are doing a simple searches for WHAT LOOKS LIKE a bare link. And because of your work, the first thing any reader will see on these thousands of articles is now an announcement of the presence of a bare link, rather than the credible information that has publicly been built up for years by multiple editors. At the speed you are leaving these announcements, there can not possibly be any quality control to your edits. But you have repeated it across a swath of articles that, in the case of the ones I watch, are not deserving of having their credibility questioned on their header by your un-researched one man's opinion. Furthermore, even if they did happen to have a bare link, its a small wikipidian oriented technicality. The header of the article is not the place to announce your opinion, you should limit your expression of your appraisal of the articles to the talk page. And while you are on the talk page, you can specify what you have fault with about the content of the article, as every other contested point of every article should properly be discussed. Trackinfo (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And thank you, I tell you about a problem and you instead revert my cleanup. You are a classy character to go along with your opinionated destruction. Trackinfo (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, you didn't look further than the top of the page. this link is a little more specific, but all it does it take you below the horizon of the same page. And for the absence of that, you deface the article? And revert to deface it again? Shame on you. Trackinfo (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justin!

Sorry, I don´t see it done... it has to be in blue... --Againme (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about this. Chau! Againme (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Album categorization

I noticed that you removed Category:Ricky Skaggs albums and Category:Jerry Douglas albums from J. D. Crowe & The New South. I think these categories are entirely appropriate there (as is Category:Tony Rice albums, which you didn't remove). They weren't guest artists, they performed on every song on the album, were members of the band (as mentioned in the article), and Rice and Skaggs were the lead singers. cmadler (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As discussed on the ANI thread, I would appreciate your adding link formatting templates to article talkpages rather than to the article pages themselves. The disruption of the formatting at the top of articles based on this relatively minor issue is not worthwhile; whereas posting about the problem on the talkpages sufficiently creates a category of articles with these problems that can then be solved.

If your response is that having the template appear on the talkpage rather than the article itself would require a change in the template coding, then I recommend that you discontinue using this template until the change can be made. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that you are using too many cleanup-link rot templates on articles. If an article has only one or two barelinks, it makes more sense to fix the links instead of adding the template. If you add the template on every article that has one or two barelinks, then over half of the articles on the English wikipedia will have the template. I also have a question, if a person fixes the links, can they remove the template? Rock'N'More (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of (A) Katy Perry

A tag has been placed on (A) Katy Perry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirming Backstage Pass

Hello! The Children's Museum's Backstage Pass & Edit-a-Thon is this coming Saturday, August 20th. Please confirm, either here or on my talk page, that you will be attending. Kindly include if you will be bringing a guest.

We ask that you meet us outside of the Welcome Center Security Office between 9:45 and 10:00am. Park in the free garage and make your way across the skywalk (located between the 2nd and 3rd levels of the garage). Come down the ramp and make a sharp left towards the security office. You will be asked to check in prior to starting the day.

Please check the event page for more details. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Looking forward to seeing you! LoriLee (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Man that is incredibly frustrating. There are only a handful of Wikipedians in Indy and I'd really looked forward to finally looping you in. Of all days for CA's to plan a training, it had to be this day. Very disappointing for me, I have to admit. We'll have to be sure to have a special day for you to stop by. I hope not too many others have to cancel. I'd be more upset. :( LoriLee (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding that huge template to the top of articles. There's no consensus for that implementation at AN/I. I'd hate to go through and remove them, but I will per WP:BRD RxS (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Are you going to fix the ones you tagged in the large format at the top of articles? RxS (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case I'll remove them myself them as I get time. If you want to tag them within consensus that's fine. RxS (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Because they don't belong at the top of articles as huge templates. That conclusion is pretty clear from the discussion. RxS (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is where it is found. I'm reverting them as I get time. RxS (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

What was the point of this edit? There is only one bare url in the article. How does that justify a huge tag? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In respect to the above and your response on Chipmunkdavis' talk page, here is a suggestion: Fix it don't tag it. And fixing it is fairly simple Reflinks is accessible from any pages "What links here" special page.
  • Click "What Links here"
  • Click "External tools: Show redirects only"
  • Bottom option in the "Tools" menu on the left side of the screen.
The tool runs through the page, marks up most bare links, tags dead ones, and automatically generates the mark up.
If you want to help, then help. Right now you are skirting disruptive editing. And before you jump - yes, even "helpful" edits can become disruptive.
- J Greb (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay But categorizing them under Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup will make this process simpler. Even if someone wants to use Reflinks (and I don't), it will be easier to implement that if someone has determined which articles are in need of cleaning up link rot in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) tagging a whole article just because a handful of references are not formatted is not useful. Tbh its only useful to tag articles for linkrot where the majority of references are not formatted. IMO its more useful for you to use reflinks rather than tag 1000s of articles for a handful of unformatted references. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Koavf, there appears to be a strong emerging consensus in the ANI discussion that your current efforts are unproductive. Will you please consider at least suspending them pending further discussion (before someone feels compelled stronger measures to cause you to do so). Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Kung Fu Records soundtracks

Category:Kung Fu Records soundtracks, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB access removed, again

Koavf, I'm fairly disappointed that despite my request for you to gain consensus prior to engaging on mass tagging runs, I see you've engaged on a very broad run of tagging articles with a "barelinks" template without any apparent consensus for this task. Using your main account to run bot tasks without consensus or approval is not appropriate, especially when the task is so minimally useful. A well-written bot could have simply converted the bare links, instead you made many edits of very little utility and continued doing so at a high rate of speed even while people were objecting to this task at your talk page and ANI. See WP:AWB#Rules of use: "Don't do anything controversial with it."

I have removed your AWB access. You can request to have it restored at an time via WT:CHECKPAGE (including a reference to this thread), but I will not personally be restoring it for you because my ability to assume good faith with respect to your AWB edits has unfortunately been degraded such that I feel that you are editing at times merely to increase your edit count. This is not an appropriate use of AWB, nor is continuing a controversial task while it is being discussed. –xenotalk 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What? When the thread went to AN/I, I stopped. Then, I resumed as consensus was that this was not an action requiring admin intervention. Then, I stopped again as users complained about the placement of the template. I revised the editing to move the placement and users complained again, requesting a freeze. Then I stopped again. Why remove AWB access now, as I repeatedly stopped or amended my editing whenever it was requested and haven't been doing it for over 24 hours? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I restored your AWB access in June on the assurance that you would seek consensus for mass tasks of this nature - "as long as you agree to seek consensus prior to engaging on mass editing campaigns" - you did not. You shouldn't have been doing the task in the first place, unless you had consensus to do it. You should not be running bot tasks on your main account, because this bypasses the BRFA process that ensures consensus is present for mass editing. I will not enable further misuse of AWB, but you are free to request it be restored by another administrator with a link to the relevant discussions. –xenotalk 22:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Xeno's specifically said that he's happy to be overridden here, so when this calms down feel free to ping me and I'll restore your access if that's still on the cards. You seem to have taken the best option and gone on to work productively in other areas for the time being, which is good judgement on your behalf. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I'll stick to browser- and Huggle-editing for awhile. It seems like adding templates is a hassle--I may just stick with formatting and categories in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that I would be 'happy to be overridden' - at least not without some credible re-assurance or editing restriction preventing Koavf from running unapproved bot tasks from his main account. If problems with AWB re-occur (e.g. further violation of the rules of use or Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Assisted editing guidelines), rather than re-remove access I may instead place an indefinite block on the account. –xenotalk 00:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive027&oldid=1089148525"