User talk:Koavf/Archive012

We're working on developing a consensus on the future of the Nobel icon template. Your opinion is welcome at Template talk:Nobel icon. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a little more cautious if I were you before a) adding highly controversial page moves to the "uncontroversial" section and b) performing the move myself after someone already reverted the previous move. Assuming good faith, you probably didn't know about WP:MOSMAC when you proposed the page move. Fine with that, however why did you perform the page move after discussion at User_talk:Parsecboy? (you must have seen the page has been moved and reverted if you have it on your watchlist)--   Avg    23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here, read WP:MOSMAC, and then, if you still instist, initiate the proper procedure for controversial and not uncontroversial moves. Respectfully,--Yannismarou (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it would be great if you could weigh in at WT:MOSMAC or simply at a requested move, as a (completely) neutral editor in regards to this subject. BalkanFever 11:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. WP:NFC#Images says that screenshots should have critical commentary, so we can't very well make up our own commentary to validate the inclusion of the images. It has to be based on existing observations made by reliable sources, otherwise, where is the limit? I added the one of the Mayans to somewhat depict them, but they don't really match up with the neighboring content. I've since fine-tuned my approach to be more explicit in tying the images with the content; see my personal examples Fight Club (film) and Doomsday (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the film itself is a primary source, so per the policy, we only draw on a descriptive claim: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Plot summaries are only included, per WP:NOT#PLOT, to complement the real-world context of the article. We could try to find an adequate replacement image -- for example, the same section talks about the flowers bursting from the conquistador's body as well as the tree in the spaceship. We could include either image, which would be supported by the existing commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a description of the primary source (the film) and reliable, third-party, published sources, the latter which is the backbone of Wikipedia. With films, there are endless scenes for which we could include non-free images. However, Wikipedia strives for free content, only permitting non-free content if it meets WP:NFCC. So in the case of The Fountain, the example of the conquistador facing the Mayan warriors is basically a description of what the primary source shows. On the other hand, we have reliable sources providing real-world context about how filmmakers explain the purpose behind flowers bursting from the body and the design of the tree in the spaceship. If we had content about the technical or thematic aspect of the conquistador being carried by the Mayan warriors, then the image would significantly illustrate that. The other image in the article significantly illustrates the gold hue that is described in the neighboring content. This means that not any ol' image can be used in an article. There has to be a case for it. If I deem an image useful and you deem it useless, where do we stand? If we have content talking about the image that cannot be replaced by a free equivalent, then there is a basis apart from our opinions for the image's inclusion. You know what I mean? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. It's a little bit of a tough position to get across. Wikipedia is pretty stringent about non-free content. Earlier in my wiki-career, I butted heads with a few editors and admins who were advocating this position. Since then, I'm in their shoes now. :-P I've tried to encourage stronger reasoning for non-free images with whomever I deal with. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We could upload this image of the tree to illustrate the critical commentary about what it took to put together. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in here (being one of those widely loathed and feared image-deleting admins), I rather agree with Erik. To put the reasoning in a slightly different perspective, it all hinges on NFCC#1+8, which say the image must make a very significant contribution to the understanding of the article, in a way that text alone couldn't. Now, an image can serve to show an awful lot of different things, some of them easily captured by text, some not. To make it legitimate, the context of the article must make it clear how and why some element that is not easily captured by text is of crucial importance to the article. So, if the context of the article is just the plot summary, where the reader merely needs to understand that "a bunch of Mayas grab the conquistador and carry him somewhere", you don't need the image, because you can easily understand the text alone. But if the context was, for instance, the reception section, and if there was, say, a notable film critic who had written that: "... the film's enactment of violent crowd scenes, with its stunning use of lightning and camera angles, sometimes approaches the esthetics and intensity of a baroque painting... (for lack of a less absurd made-up example), then this screenshot would serve as a legitimate illustration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Koavf,

I was very surprised to read the message which you left for me on the Talk page of the IP address which I share with others whilst browsing Wikipedia. Your comments are somewhat puzzling given that you it is you who are constantly reverting edits on the Pan-Arab Colors page without explanation. Moreover, the combative nature of your message falls sadly short of the standards required of contributors to Wikipedia, who should all presume good faith in the edits of other contributors.

If you have a problem with the nature of edits being made to the Pan-Arab Colors page, or indeed any other page on Wikipedia, I politely suggest that you adopt a more civil and dispassionate means of initiating discussion, preferably on the Talk page of the article in question, rather than making an unjustified and unjustifiable threat of blocking. Though this IP address is shared, the edits to the Pan-Arab Colors page are my own, and as such I can attest to the fact that they are absolutely within the permitted framework for edits on Wikipedia.

Regarding the substance of the edits, the issue with which you take exception appears to be the status of the Flag of Andalusia. As has already been stated by another contributor, this flag does not contain the Pan-Arab Colors - it only contains green and white. There is no similarity with those of Egypt and Yemen, which use only three of the four Pan-Arab Colors, namely red, white, and black (but not green), because these are the Arab Liberation Colors, a distinct and recognized sub-section of the Pan-Arab Colors. Moreover, you will be aware that previous versions of both these flags did indeed contain green in addition to the other Pan-Arab Colors.

The "source" offered by the contributor making the unique and factually inaccurate assertion that the Flag of Andalusia contains the Pan-Arab Colors (who is incidentally a resident of Andalusia) is entirely flawed. As both an Arab, and a student of vexillolgy, I can state unequivocally that the Flag of Andalusia does not fit into the distinct category of flags bearing the Pan-Arab Colors. Naturally, I recognize your right, and the right of any other contributor, to dispute this and to edit the article accordingly. This is the very nature of Wikipedia, and since I assume good faith on your part, I do not exception to your edits, though I know them to be entirely inaccurate from a factual point of view. I hope that you will reciprocate in this same spirit, as indeed the Wikipedia regulations oblige you to, and that further discussion of this matter will be limited to a respectful, productive, and non-threatening exchange on the article's Talk page.

I would naturally be very pleased to know your opinions on the points raised above, however, I respectfully request that any further message directed for my attention be left on the Talk page of the article itself (or indeed on your own Talk page), rather than on that of the IP address, simply because as it is a shared IP address, any messages will be viewed by users other than myself and be the cause of confusion. Until such time as the issue is definitively resolved on the article Talk page, I will continue to make factually accurate edits to the page, and I trust that you will do the same. In view of my preceding words, I hope that any further exchanges between us will be of a cordial and respectful nature.

Regards 90.242.24.164 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine If you think it's a bad source, you should post that on the talk page and explain yourself there, rather than resort to reverting and deletion over and over again. You could have saved so much time and effort for both of us had you done that in the first place and sought consensus.

The notion that I in particular am the one reverting is obviously nonsense, since you are doing the same and I am the one who took the initiative to contact you. I'm not going to get into some argument about the principles of Wikipedia or when blocking is justified. You're clearly familiar with that, which makes your constant reversion without posting to talk even more frustrating and unnecessary.

If you want messages directed to you in particular, I suggest that you stop editing without a login; there are several advantages to having a username (e.g. actual anonymity.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the name of the the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand discussion. The archives are now inaccessable as a result. Please restore access. Many people have made foolish edits recently that if they could read the archive they would realize they are representing myth as fact.Werchovsky (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for restoring access to the archives.Werchovsky (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same Blu-Ray.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) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same HD-DVD.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) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same DVD.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) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same DVD box (Collector's Edition).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) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains the Same DVD (Collector's Edition).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) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take those 2 categories out? [1] Grk1011 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

She was in the contest (1st cat), she represented Greece (2nd cat), she also represented Cyprus a diff year (3rd cat). Grk1011 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok here's what's wrong. Anna Vissi was in the contest and has represented both Greece and Cyprus before. She is in Greek Eurovision Song Contest entrants because she entered the country for Greece. She has also been in the contest representing Cyprus. It has nothing to do with her nationality if that is what you were thinking. The Greece cat has all artists who have represented Greece and the same goes for the Cyprus cat. Grk1011 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok!! Now I get it. Sorry you had to go through the trouble of taking a screen shot. Grk1011 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just to let you know, categories are not eligible to be deleted under WP:CSD#A3. This criterion only applies to articles, hence the "A". I think what you may have been trying to use was {{db-catempty}}, which files a category under CSD C1. Please note, however, that this criterion only applies if the category has had no members for four days, and is not likely to get any anytime soon (such as a maintenance category might), and has no relevance to the text portion of the category. Since I'm assuming that's what you meant, I'll probably delete most of your taggings anyway, but if I decline any, that's why. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I just noticed it seems most of those were speedy renames - you can tag those for CSD C2 with {{db-c2}}, once everything's been moved into the new category, of course. I actually use a "homemade" template for this, {{User:Hersfold/CFD ready}} if you prefer that instead. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. That was dumb of me. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This caught my eye: "Magic Alex over redirect: most common name, remove psuedo-dab".

Magic Alex (discounting the title) is mentioned FIVE times. Alex (alone) is mentioned TWICE. Mardas is mentioned over SEVENTY times.

Could you please give me a sane reason for reverting the name? Leaving a note on the article's talk page would be nice, which you didn't do before.--andreasegde (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

--mboverload@ 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Loved By Few, Hated By Many, 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) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Koavf! If you don't mind, when you {{db-c2}} a category, would you take the moment needed to indicate on the talk page what the new, correctly spelled category name is? Just makes checking the deletion easier. Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this? The person in the picture on that page is obviously Mick Taylor. Stan weller (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's a repeat of a hoax article, deleted before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Davis - so it qualifies for a db-g4 speedy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of this nomination, should this previous one be closed or withdrawn? I noticed US–Iraq is on the longer list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this? Please discuss on the talk page. Have you tried to read the article you have moved? That article covers only relations before 1941, the modifier is not unnecessary. Colchicum (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, it is blatantly wrong to mention the Soviet Union in the title. The Soviet Union didn't exist before 1924, only Soviet Russia did, hence Soviet--German relations before 1941, and nothing else. Please review your edit. Colchicum (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I respectfully disagree. The modifier is necessary. The article and much of the cited literature deal specifically with this period. As you know perfectly well, controversial moves should be discussed first. This one is controversial. Please revert yourself and follow the procedure. Colchicum (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 1924 is a typo. Mind WP:NOR, however. The period is dealt with as a whole in the literature and it is perfectly fine to have a specific article for it. So I revert your move (except for the dash). If you disagree with status quo, please follow the normal procedure. Colchicum (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you moving pages to names outside of standard naming conventions? There is a reason (WP:FOR) that it is Chadian-Sudanese relations, not Chad-Sudan relations. Fix the dash if you like, but keep the correct names.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to go back and fix your mistakes but I just don't have the energy. Please fix them yourself.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:David Byrne and Brian Eno -- Everything That Happens Will Happen Today Album Cover.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) 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Everything That Happens Will Happen Today deluxe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:David Byrne and Brian Eno 2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't like what you've done with Matt Bianco. It looks a mess and is completely inconsistent with all the other cover versions. What was wrong with it the way it was? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have been doing some patrolling on new pages and I am having some trouble with a certain user user:gibbs101 this user created a page titled IGangsta Productionz and I placed a speedy deletion tag due to importance or significance of the subject and the page was deleted. However the page was re-created and I placed the tag on it once again then gibbs101 removed the tag without putting the "hangon" tag and stating a reason the user then vandelised my user page. So I then reverted the edit on my page as well as putting the speedy deletion tag back on the igangsta productionz page again then wrote this to you and that is where the situation is at at the moment. Can you plase help me out at all.--Theoneintraining (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast thankyou very much, I do assume good faith and I will try to be as nice as I can to him/her as I can, How ever you are right if vandalism continues I will report Gibbs101. Again thank very much sir and have a nice day.--Theoneintraining (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Koavf. You should be aware that you're being discussed here. Bishonen | talk 06:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

I don't understand, myself and other admins have already warned you, specifically, against doing exactly these moves. So, you just wait a year? El_C 08:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of this latest incident between myself and one of these admins can be found here. Please review & feel free to comment. Thx. El_C 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You ask: "I really can't think of any compelling reason to have articles not obey that same standard. Can you?" Yes, I can. WP:USEENGLISH. That's the overriding policy here. Consistency is all fine and dandy, but Wikipedia naming should not and cannot attempt to be more consistent than the English language itself. It is a fact that country names in English are not a grammatically consistent class. What works syntactically with "United States–Venezuela relations" does not work with "German-Polish relations". People just don't say "Germany–Poland relations". It's simply wrong.

So, my opinion is still the same as a year ago: you got your sense of priorities wrong. Wikipedia naming policy favours whatever is most natural and common for each individual article. Naturalness is more important than uniformity. Please respect the decisions local editors have taken about what they find sounds best and reflects actual usage in the relevant literature about their particular countries. Some careful changes to details such as consistency in capitalisation is okay, but please don't force your unitary scheme on article where people have made well-considered different choices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that most of the N–N compounds are simply not correct English. I have to wonder, you are a native speaker, aren't you? I must admit I'm not, but I can't really believe my feel of the language should be that far off. Do you seriously maintain that "Germany–The Netherlands relations" is correct idiomatic English? It sounds utterly bizarre to me. Who on earth would ever say such a thing? Can you point me to a single instance where a native English speaker, in a well-edited published source, in normal running text, has written something like "It has been reported that Germany–The Netherlands relations have become better in recent years" or something like that? Or "... Germany–Japan relations ..."? It's just not part of the language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We obviously have different notions of ungrammaticality. If nobody would be inclined to spontaneously say it, it is ungrammatical. A language is what people actually say. Not what people could, by some manipulation, be made to somehow figure out. As for "Sino-" versus "Chinese-", I have no opinion, both seem perfectly acceptable to me, and I'll gladly leave the decision to those people who are actually familiar with the field and have worked on those articles. From what you write, I still get the impression that you seem fixated on the notion that having a uniform scheme for all articles is in itself an important goal. Have you understood that I'm disputing this very premise? Uniformity is just nowhere close to the top of the list of priorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"conventional and slang terminology"???? Who's talking about slang? "Vernacular"??? Who is talking about vernacular? "Defer to what is a standardized and systematized rather than the vernacular"???? You are mistaking your own made-up "standards" with the only true standard that exists in language: that which speakers actually do. Sorry, but you are not making any sense at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it is simply: fr:Monachisme had all links except en: for monk. so there was problem with mixed interwiki. There were only two good possibilities: replace interwiki in french article and remove link to fr: from all other languagues from Monk; or the one I did. If you think the other possibility is better, repalce interwiki in fr and let me know, I'll repair all other languages. JAn Dudík (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I considered moving your hangon tag, but I decided not to because the article names are different enough. If they had been more similar, say only by one comma, then I would have moved it. I'm not sure why you moved it to include a capital "The" to begin with, though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also resent the accusation that I "keep on deleting" your tags and "moving to different redirects". I only moved the db-move once, when I realized I had misplaced the db-move. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to slow down and consider what you are writing. The manner in which you wrote it ("we can have a conversation, but if you keep on deleting my tags and moving to different redirects, we can't") could easily be taken as an insinuation that I had been repeatedly deleting and moving—as though you were trying to fix something, and I kept disruptively moving things around, all the while avoiding a conversation with you. First, it was evident that I was not going to move anything after the correction. Second, I did not see a need to post anything to your talk page, because I knew you would see the change very soon on your watchlist. It isn't as though I was avoiding a conversation, because until you posted to my talk page, i didn't realize there was a conversation to be had. So that is settled. In the future, please consider your words carefully, so that you won't have to make posts like this on my talk page. Now let's discuss the issue at hand: I have replied to your comment at Talk:Meet the Eels: Essential Eels, Vol. 1 (1996–2006). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was evident, because the edit summary (where I removed the db-move and the hangon) said "Wrong one" (diff), and my very next edit, I added db-move to the appropriate page (diff). Since it was a different page, I didn't want to make the presumption that, because you wanted to postpone moving the article to one location, you would also want to postpone moving it to another, different location. For example, someone might contest moving George Bush, Jr. (pretending that is its current location) to worst U.S. president ever, but might not object to moving it to George W. Bush, a suitable location. I did not see your talk page message (diff), because I was not watching that page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add categories which do not apply to articles. The recordings in The Beatles Box Set were produced by George Martin with Phil Spector receiving producer credit on the Let it Be album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Justin thank you for merging to articles together. I was going to ask you if you can do it to another album (¿Dónde Jugarán los Niños? (Special Edition) to ¿Dónde Jugarán Los Niños?, but it looks like it has been done already. Again thank you!! Manafan5 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there are very good reasons why the title of this play has lower-case "is", which are stated on the article's discussion page. Please also note that before reversing a change (to any article) which has previously been discussed on the talk page, you need to justify your changes there. I have therefore reversed your changes in the text of the article, but unfortunately it is not now possible to reverse your move. I would appreciate it if you could discuss your changes on the article talk page before I initiate a page-move request. Note also that I am likely to be away from Wikipedia for several days, so I would appreciate it if you did not revese my changes until I have had a chance to reply to your comments. Many thanks,

--NSH001 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Koavf. I didn't see any protection on either of the pages you requested to be moved; article creation on the WP:DASHed locations was set to "allow all users". I'm not sure why it wouldn't let you move the pages. In any case, I moved the three that you requested. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen plenty of weird stuff happen on Wikipedia, seemingly with no reason or explanation. I guess it all worked out though, right? Parsecboy (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash (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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are no subcats for the songs or members, however, so the category doesn't really serve a purpose. Most band categories like this usually get deleted unless there's a further subcategorization; furthermore, it's the only eponymous subcat of Category:American country music groups so it's really out of place. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you moving all of these articles? Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an absolutely ridiculous standard. Hyphens are on a keyboard, dashes aren't. Requiring people to create articles with dashes in the names instead of hyphens is far too burdensome. Corvus cornix_talk 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I rarely get involved in MOS discussions, since they tend to be contentious and concentrate on miniscule details. Corvus cornix_talk 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand why you're doing it. I just think it's wrong, but you're working off what is a really stupid convention. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you're planning to do a second wave of moves, since this is a bit of a mess at present. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to withdraw this nomination. There's currently a pagemove request on Robert Lange, as he is most often credited as "Robert John 'Mutt' Lange", and it looks like the page will indeed be moved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I went ahead and boldly moved it myself. The category now matches the parent article of Robert John "Mutt" Lange. Should I go ahead and close it? Never mind, I went ahead and closed the cfd since your concern (category matching the parent article) was now met, albeit by moving the parent article instead of the category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I said in the move request, he's usually credited by his full name with the nick in quotes. I have all but one of Shania's albums, and they all list him as "Robert John 'Mutt' Lange", plus that's how he's listed on Allmusic. I figure that this is a case similar to Hargus "Pig" Robbins, where the nickname in quotes is part of his commonly recognized name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Se also User_talk:The_Duke_of_Waltham/Archive_5#Another dash question and User_talk:Noetica#Hyphenation_question. Renata (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I don't blame you. In fact, I am grateful that you are stepping up to standardize the titles (one way or another). I just though you should be aware of this particular discussion. Gluck, Renata (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, one of my archives is linked. I must comment. :-)

I am more than happy to see that there are people willing to read the Manual of Style and apply it as far as the naming of articles is concerned. However, I'm afraid that the guideline you mention at the article's talk page is not relevant in this case. All examples are between two items, and although the rule usually does apply as well to three items (e.g. New York – London – Paris flight), there is absolutely no provision for items with two degrees of connection (I don't think there is any manual of style so refined, and if this one were, the people opposing its prescriptiveness would have one more reason to continue to do so). In the title in question, we have a connection between two items, one of which is composite and includes another connection. The guideline does not treat subsets like that, and we should therefore make a decision here based on the merits of the case alone. (I could mention "Ignore all rules" here, but it's irrelevant: there is no rule to ignore in this case.)

Therefore, we need to consider the peculiarities of the case. And I find Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War highly misleading. I agree that rephrasing it might be the best choice, but we need to find a way to do that, and it does not sound easy at all. Until an alternative is found, I still believe using the hyphen is the way to go. Waltham, The Duke of 13:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(From User talk:The Duke of Waltham)

No rules? "I could mention 'Ignore all rules' here, but it's irrelevant: there is no rule to ignore in this case." That's not strictly true: if there was an article on the Polish and Lithuanian union (there are several about related political entities), it would be "Polish–Lithuanian Union" or about a joint business, it would be "Polish–Lithuanian Airlines," etc. The alliance between those two includes –, so when that alliance is paired up against something else, it becomes "Polish–Lithuanian–X." As you said, there is no provision for changing this to a hyphen or another kind of dash simply because there is a third party involved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To sum up (correct me if I am wrong): I believe that due to the demands of this case, we should use a different formula than the one usually applied on such titles. You believe that there are no grounds here to use a hyphen where an en dash is normally used.

I agree that the hyphen is somewhat unconventional here. However, I insist that the title under discussion is a highly unusual one, and that our dashing conventions are not at all designed to regulate such titles. Therefore, we should exercise our discretion in the naming of this article. And even though Polish–Lithuanian normally uses an en dash, the distinction between this part and Teutonic should take precedence; since we cannot use an em dash, and spaced dashes are out of the question (with a lack of spaces in either part), we are left with no choice but to put to use the symbol right down the hierarchy: a hyphen. Using en dashes for both separations would produce a misleading title, which is unacceptable. The Poles and the Lithuanians were in the same camp, against the Teutonic knights; the Polish–Lithuanian distinction isn't even that obvious in the title, considering the absence of the word Commonwealth. They are more united than separated here.

With serial commas, there are people not using them unless omitting the comma causes confusion, and people using them unless the presence of the comma causes confusion. In either case, confusion must be avoided. The same principle permeates Wikipedia: make sure the reader understands without problems what they are reading. They should get the point without mistakes or delays. How is Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War clearer than Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War? Waltham, The Duke of 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity I'll admit that your question "How is Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War clearer than Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War?" is a completely valid one. All I can say is that with mixed dashes, it looks like some formatting error to me. I'd imagine that there are some users who woudl understand what that means immediately, for others, it would take a moment. Looking at the talk page of that article, it appears that the most common name is to omit "Lithuanian," that would be a solution. Otherwise, you could include "Commonwealth" and make some space delimiter at least; I honestly don't know if that would be clearer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for changing this awkward construct; I simply support the mixed-dash scheme for the period until this happens. Option one, namely to omit Lithuanian, sounds good enough if the editors working on the article accept it. I shouldn't know how most sources refer to the war. If we are to clutter up the title, we can have something like Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – Teutonic (Knights/Order) War. Big and awkward, but clear like a night in the Antarctic. For further options, we shall need some consultation.

(Note: for titles that look like a mistake might have happened, there is are the templates to note this in the talk page—see Talk:New York City.) Waltham, The Duke of 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More fractioning... (sigh)

Anyway. I say we go back to Talk:Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War#Name and start gathering opinions for the new name. If no alternative is accepted, however, we should revert back to the hyphenated version. Waltham, The Duke of 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your conversion of html charcters to ISO characters in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. My reason was that the page was showing editors which dash-like-marks to use in various situations, and illustrating how to type them. Entering ISO characters directly is not feasible for many editors. The little toolkit below the edit window isn't much use, becase although it offeres a selection of dash-like-marks, it does not indicate which is which, so most editors don't have a realistic alternative to typing the html. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf, I was asked by a user to comment on your recent edit at Otto Frederick Hunziker. In particular they were confused about your removal of en and em dash html (which I actually implemented last month) and your addition of link autoformatting after it had been previously removed. I wanted to alert you that they've raised a few points on the article's talk page about your edit in case you wish to comment, but I also wanted to alert you about the recent changes per MOS:UNLINKYEARS. In short, date autoformatting is now depreciated by the MOS, so full dates (i.e. September 8, 2008) should no longer be linked. If you have any questions, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Koavf, thank you for understanding my misunderstanding re the HTML-to-unicode translation. In appreciation for that and your work on the article, please accept the

		Civility Award
		Thanks for understanding a novice author & helping with the O F Hunziker article.

Sincerely, --Rpclod (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Others. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem. The alternate cover and the Balanescu Quartet chronology are not displaying, only the Nyman chornology, the first cover, and the third cover. I don't want to identify the second cover as a reissue, because I don't know which came first. I know only that the first cover is what I've seen in stores, and the second and third cover only online. The second cover may be the British edition, which would make it primary, but I don't know for sure. The alternate cover has been marked orphaned and will be speedy deleted if the issue is not resolved soon.

{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = String Quartets 1-3
| Type        = studio
| Longtype    = 
| Artist      = [[Michael Nyman]]
| Cover       = NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
| Cover size  = 200
| Caption     = art by Paul Richards<br>clockwise from top left: Balanescu, Musker, Hinnigan, Carney
| Released    = [[June 14]], 1991
| Recorded    = November 1990, [[Church Studios]], [[Crouch End]] using [[B & W Loudspeakers]]
| Genre       = [[Contemporary classical music]], [[Chamber music]], [[string quartet]], [[minimalist music]]
| Length      = 63:17
| Language    = 
| Label       = [[Argo Records|Argo]]
| Director    = 
| Producer    = [[Andrew Cornall]]
| Reviews     = 
| Compiler    = 
| Chronology  = Michael Nyman
| Last album  = [[Out of the Ruins]]<br>1990
| This album  = [[String Quartets 1-3]]<br>1991
| Next album  = [[Prospero's Books]]<br>1991
| Misc        = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist      = Balanescu Quartet
  | Type        = Studio
  | Last album  = 
  | This album  = [[String Quartets 1-3]]<br>1991
  | Next album  = Byrne/Lurie/Moran/Torke<br>1992
  }}
| Misc        = {{Extra album cover
  | Upper caption  = 1991 Alternate Cover
  | Type           = 
  | Cover          = Altsq1-3.jpg
  | Lower caption  = 
  }}
| Misc        = {{Extra album cover
  | Upper caption  = 2002 Decca Reissue
  | Type           = Reissue
  | Cover          = NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
  | Lower caption  = 
  }}
}}

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.