User talk:Koavf/Archive015

...at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#"By-artist" categorization of cover songs. Your input there is welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this edit fallacious: WP:NC#Special characters and formatting specifically says, in bold, Do not apply formatting. It does not "mandate using italicized names for albums". In fact it says it "is used only in special cases" such as for taxonomic names of genera and species. MOS:TTR#Italics and formatting further says that {{italic title}} "should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for taxonomic genera and species". If you wish to change the MoS, you need to start a discussion on this in the appropriate place (the albums project would be a good place to start). Unless/until there is a consensus on the issue, please stop using {{italic title}} on album articles, and don't insert disengenous wording into the project's guidelines. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was MOS:TITLE that you were referring to (when you said "MOS mandates using italicized names for albums"), that guidelines is for the titles of works, not the titles of Wikipedia articles. In other words, it refers to where the name of the work appears in the article text. If you look at all of the examples, they are for text formatting within the article body, not formatting of the article's title. So yes, we do "mandate" italicizing titles within article text, but we don't mandate itlicizing the titles of Wikipedia articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Koavf, I noticed you recently requested both Age Ain't Nothing But a Number and Age Ain't Nothing But a Number (song) to be moved due to the capitalization of "but". I think it might interest you to have a look at this discussion I had brought up to another user when he moved the title to capitalize "but". Since both seem to be correct, I'd thought it might be worthwhile to maybe discuss capitalization of "but", just so it doesn't get moved back and forth every once in a while. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy As a non-grammatician, I have to admit that I cannot say whether or not "but" is a coordinating conjunction in this title, nonetheless it is shorter than four letters (and it is not at the beginning or end of the phrase), so it should not be capitalized. Please explain on my talk if there is something I am missing here (which is entirely possible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, per WP:CAPS, it states In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for… and it lists several examples, such as articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions and so on. According to Dictionary.com, "but" can be used as either conjunction, preposition or adverb. This is where it gets tricky: all definitions seem to fit. Conjunctions and prepositions are, of course, not capitalized; adverbs are. The definition of "but" in sense of an adverb is "only; just", which seems to fit the title of the album and song (age is just/only a number). This is pretty much where the problem arises. Do we capitalize "but" or not? Doing a bit of searching, some publishers and websites capitalize "but": Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, etc. Others don't: Rolling Stone, among others (too lazy to look at the moment). It's somewhat inconsistent, so I'm not too sure if either are fine or if one is more correct than another. As for the amount of letters it contains, I'd point out that "it" is shorter than four letters, but is always capitalized as it can only be used as a pronoun or noun. — ξ^xplicit 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Touché You are--obviously--correct that "it" is capitalized, as it is a noun. My recollection was that only nouns and verbs were exempt from the minimal-length rule, but I suppose I was mistaken on this matter as well. It is clearly more complicated than I first realized and I don't know that I have anything to add to the discussion. :-/ Thanks for educating me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Perhaps I'll bring this up over at WT:CAPS. — ξ^xplicit 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How is In the Beginning (Circa 1960) considered a posthumous album? Bubba73 (talk), 05:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul announced that he was leaving the month before it was released but the lawsuit to dissolve the Beatles wasn't filed until December. Also, "posthumous" usually meand after death. Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted on the ref thing. I'm taking out items with "www." (among other stuff) from the category Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), I wrongly picked this article because it has www in the image name (short for "West Wsa Won" i suppose) adn I put "." in the regex instead of "\." I'll check back for any others like that.

The default sort is to enable "How The" to sort after "How That" and before "How Theodore". (Note the capital T.) This does not affect the title shown in categories, just the sort order.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Hello there. Just noticed you added Category:Canadian discographies to Dave Matthews Band discography and I was wondering why? As far as I know, none of the band members are Canadian. Darry2385 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't want to go removing it without asking in case there was something I didn't know. Darry2385 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the discography categorisations. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man I'm still chipping away; I should be done later today/early tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The site "the classicalshop.net" has been blacklisted because it has been observed that it is often linked by spammers. See this discussion MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#theclassicalmusicshop.net. Perhaps one of you has opinions about providing links to product pages in discographies, or knows of a page where one could solicit opinions. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't know whether you're trying to be helpful or a vandal, but adding the "Polish Rapists" category to the poor guy's article is inflammatory. Besides, she came onto him. Which makes him a paedophile, not a rapist. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So, he's in the "French Rapists" category? Right, time to do some editing. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC) There is no settle consensus for adding these cats, talkpage please. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What is there to see on the talk? This is also under discussion at BLP noticeboard.Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy this to at least three other talk pages.--Iusepencils. (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Category:Articles containing German language text and Category:Articles containing Japanese language text, these categories should be added only by use of {{lang}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I was not aware of that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:HONOR Honorifics (e.g. "Thich") are generally to be avoided in article titles, although there has been consensus to include them amongst some (e.g. Pope John Paul II and Saint Peter.) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) makes no mention of a special dispensation for "Thich" and I know of no consensus to include this honorific in article names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not an honorofic. Thich comes from the word "Thich Ca" meaning "Sakya" which was the birth tribe of Buddha, and is used by all clerics, effectively their surname, because they consider themselves to be part of the Buddha's family. Things like "Hoa thuong" (most ven), "Thuong toa" (ven) "Dai Duc" (rev) are honorifics, this is not. Are you going to delete "Singh" from the neam of every Sikh? Because a Sikha leader ages ago gave all his followers that surname. Stop dogmatically doing things without proper reasoning. You also moved a Buddhist temple's name and chopped it's name off under "honorific". YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Easier to just use my talk page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you were doing. But the band isn't called "Sisters of Mercy" it is called "The Sisters of Mercy" and this is something the band makes a particular note of a few times on their official website[1][2]. So defaultsorting them to appear under the the letter "S" is incorrect. --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A proper noun is not unimportant, it is something's name (ie the band's). Just because The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are sorted to exclude the "The" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I have shown how the band's name is correctly rendered. --JD554 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read up on how we use cats on Wikipedia, and stop inappropriately adding Category:Democrats for Life of America to articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this to come off to harsh, but maybe you shouldn't be creating categories if you don't understand the basic purpose of categories in the first place. Seeing as you did not revert all of my category removals, perhaps you agree to some agree in your haste (for example adding this minor category to a parent article, or adding it to completely off topic subjects). I'd argue that adding this category to individuals' articles is a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, where clearly their affiliation/membership to this organization is not defining (and I'd further argue that this category is a subject category, not a list category, and that we'd at least need a separate category called Category:Democrats for Life members, though I don't believe such an article is necessary due to the aforementioned overcategorization). Think of much more notable organizations, the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the Blue Dog Democrats, the Progressive Caucus, etc. Do these have categories? (I will note that we do have a NRA membership category though). But please, look through the articles of individuals whose article you added this category. Do they have any other category based on organization? Imagine what the categorization at the bottom of these politician's articles would look like if we did that? Democrats for Life is a very minor/trivial organization, so if we are to include that category, we'd have to include hundreds of others. We simply don't categorize individuals like this, so this is a classic case of overcategorization when it comes to articles on individuals. Similarly, I believe this category is overcategorization for the 2004 Democratic National Convention article for similar reasons. What does that leave? 5 articles? A bill they created, a march they participated in 2006, a prior unrelated organization, a book written by the org, and the parent article. This category is currently being misapplied to articles, and I don't believe it can stand on it's own, and thus I am nominating it for deletion. I hope this explains what I was too short about last night (sorry for that, it was late and I perhaps should have gone to bed, which I did end up doing in the middle of my reverts). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_13#Category:Democrats_for_Life_of_America. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was already a discussion over at WP:MOS about this. Do not revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right And see my most recent edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All I see is that you moved an article to a name you didn't have consensus for. You don't get your way during discussion. During discussion, the article stays how it was, you need to gain consensus before a move like that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. That is why I went to post on the user's talk page to apologize; I didn't realize there was a discussion at all and if consensus is to do otherwise, I will happily honor it. It was a simple mistake. For that matter, I do not know if the other user did essentially the same thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I see that now. Other than that, I am currently seeking admin help in moving the article back.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't come to my talk page to apologise, but don't worry about it. I was right and I was proven right. Radiopathy •talk• 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no you weren't, you were insisting that it was an m dash, when in fact it was not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing SarekOfVulcan. Also, I never claimed that it was an mdash, but a figure dash; which is what it is. Show me where I "insisted that it was an m dash." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He meant me. Don't feed the troll. Radiopathy •talk• 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Right Clearly, I was confused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin - Just wanted to congratulate you on your support for dadelus969 who I have only just met (through our love of the quo). You also clearly appreciate his innocent nature and the fact that he would clearly never do the things which radiopathy is accusing him of. Dadelus12 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Disregard above message, as was made by a serial sock puppet. MuZemike 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello koavf: Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of Category:People of Ottoman Istanbul vs Category:People from Istanbul - and does it matter if he was there only a few years vs being born there? I don't know how these cats are defined. Smkolins (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you move this article without consent? Now it is very difficult to move this article back. It also messed up the intro. Please find some way of moving it back.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi; if you manually rename categories that are at WP:CFDS, don't forget to also manually transfer the contents of the talk pages. That's why I like letting the bot do it—much easier ;| Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the snooker move requests from uncontroversial section to the controversial section. I did this because on a similar page, Talk:Snooker_season_2008/2009#Requested_move, this was a controversial move. I do not have any preference one way or the other. They will need to be converted to move request on a talk page to continue. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Koavf,

Regarding this edit, just because a category is true, doesn't mean it needs to be on an article, otherwise every page would have hundreds of categories. The summary on WP:CAT says, "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." Being buried in modern day Israel is in no way a defining characteristic of Bah'u'llah. See also WP:OVERCAT, which says, "However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter".

Regarding the discussion of Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith, the consensus that you claim says "NO CONSENSUS". The above points are valid for those articles such as Jesus, Buddha, etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of African Union member states by population. 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 African Union member states by population. 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) 01:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, understood now. By the way, is it necessary to keep the tracklisting of articles as this and this uncollapsed? The second one especially looks weird, and the article looks bad visually. Suede67 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, my thinking is that the tracklist is not as important as the other information, other tha purely visual reasons. i'll collapse the dvd track listing on Up to Now only. Thanks for your help. Suede67 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing articles on en.wikipedia for a couple of years, but began to take note of the incredible number of biography articles for musicians that have either inferior, outdated, or mostly, no photo whatsoever. I began learning to ask photographers on Flickr for permission to use their photos, and ask them to change their copyright to a GDFL or SA-BY-CC license, but the "Bryan Flickr upload" appears to be broken, and the handful of editors I've met I've stretched thin asking for help and assistance. Do you know how the ORTIS tag works in Commons? Other than Flickr, I don't know how to upload photos and prove I have permission via email (usually from publicists for the musicians I'm trying to find photos to fit. I've seen your work throughout my editing and am hoping you are familiar with Wikimedia Commons. I've had a hell of a time trying to comprehend how they work, how to be of use there, learn how they categorize, and generally, receive few offers of help, and those always assume that I've got a grasp of computer use and will learn things much quicker than I do, so I end up running out of there with my hands up screaming! I've noticed that you know about using computers, of which I never learned anything since I'm in my 40s and never had real opportunities to pick up tricks to use them. May I come to you for help with comprehending Commons, and some basic tips on page layout, etc.? I'm not stupid but do have ADD, and sometimes with new things I am slow to pick things up, but once I learn, my memory is pretty sharp. Is it OK to come to you for such things? Thanks for your time!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I was just feeling around for a little help. No harm! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "POV" comment was in reference to actual vandalism which I chose to not refer to in that way - if you'd care to look at the dif.

You've been told repeatedly that a template is a guideline, not policy. Your block log speaks volumes about how much respect you have for policy.

When denoting a place in England, you list the highest government body followed by the county and the historical country. If it's a place in Greater London, you list the highest government body followed by "London, England".

Please refrain from editing UK articles if you can't do so with some respect for the feelings of the people who live there. If you continue to "UK troll", you will bring the wrath of several administrators upon yourself. Radiopathy •talk• 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw you removed the category Category:Monotheistic religions from Yazidi. Nowhere in the article does it adress that issue in so many words, but it did give the impression of a monotheistic religion. [3] calls them polytheistic, while [4] calls them monotheistic. Do you have anything to say about this? Debresser (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And what with Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule? Debresser (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Yazidi should have the cat, and the two examples you mentioned also. You might want to ask somebody else's opinion. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The best place to ask is wp:cat. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Question. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The detail about "Voice of Harold" is trivial and more relevant to the Dead Letter Office article. The tracklist and references formatting you institute are unnecessary (especially the latter, since reference intenral consistency is mandatory in Wikipedia articles, and the book templates aren't used in the article). The release section is a mess and completely unnecessary; some details are redudnant to other parts of the article and other are unsourced. The release table is unsourced and unnecessary; despite what the Albums wikiproject says, this sort of section has never been treated as mandatory, and even then, it has to conform to Wikipedia's overarching sourcing and verifiability guidelines, which in the version you institute it does not. I appreciate the work you do on album articles, but most of your edits to Reckoning (which is labeled a Good Article on Wikipedia) are detrimental to its quality, and could lead to delisting from the Good Article listing if they are left in. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you several times, over several articles, over several editing issues, that guidelines are just that: guidelines. Normally we stick to the prevailing style at an article - or others similar to it. Being inflexible and then edit warring and telling other editors that they're misinterpreting "policy" is not a constructive use of your time or anyone else's here, and unfortunately, so far you don't seem to share in the consequences of your actions. Radiopathy •talk• 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to move around developed articles without discussion. Your moves to titles containing ndashes are particularly vexing. Please familiarize yourself with the function of ndash. I copy-paste from our article for your convenience:

The en dash is used in ranges, such as 6–10 years, read as "six to ten years". (emphasis mine)

examples:

• June–July 1967
• 1:00–2:00 p.m.
• For ages 3–5
• pp. 38–55
• President Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)

If you find an article title including such a range and move it to an ndash-containing title, I will not complain. But you have repeatedly moved articles to ndashy titles that had nothing to do with ranges at all. For example, "creation-evolution" in List of topics in the creation-evolution controversy is not a range, nor is "Witch-cult" in Witch-cult hypothesis, and both are properly spelled with a regular hyphen. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

right, I will grant you creation–evolution as possibly arguable, but not *witch–cult. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it would be great if you could repopulate Category:Jewish inventors in the same manner you depopulated it following the previous discussion. Thanks very much for this consideration, Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you have nominated for deletion some Unitarian Universalism-related categories. As the nominator, would you please put a note linking the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group? Thank you! LadyofShalott 07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I just thought that the nominator should let interested parties know. It was sort of a fluke that I found it, and I would have appreciated a note having been left by you on the project page. Since you've said you'll do it now, no worries! Thanks again, LadyofShalott 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Magnapoplogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you rapidly removing the Xbox 360 games category from several articles? BlazerKnight (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Same question about PS3 games. It appears to be only PS3-exclusive games? Have you held a discussion anywhere on this as is usually the practice when making major changes to well-established practices? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response I have responded on BlazerKnight's talk. What do you mean when you write "It appears to be only PS3-exclusive games?"? I don't understand what you're trying to ask me. I'm attempting to get rid of redundant categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Before reading your comment on Blaser's talk page, I was just saying that I had spotted a pattern (PS3 only games) and was asking if that had anything to do with the reason for removing the categories. Evidently it did. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUPCAT applies. The games need to be in both categories. The "only" category is a distinguished category, therefore xbox-only and ps3-only games should be in BOTH parent and sub-categories. - X201 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond initially because I assumed you were doing something routine and sanctioned, just wanted to hear the justification. But it looks like X201 may have a point. What's your response to that? BlazerKnight (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

X201 is correct. Also this matter has been mentioned at the video games project talk page several times in the past. There is no consensus to remove the main system category, just because there is similar categories around (only, wi-fi and so on). So I suggest you bring this up on the project talk page if you want it changed. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with X201. RazielZero (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And another agreement that both categories are needed per WP:DUPCAT. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your post on ChimpanzeeUK's talk page, I'd have to assume it's because of the utter lack of content in the article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure If that's true (and I don't know, of course, since you are not him), then it's a bad idea because adding articles to templates keeps them from being orphans and encourages users to edit them by giving the article visibility. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Like you said, it's just my guess, but it seems the most logical thing (though I'll admit I don't know the series in question, so there may be a far better explanation). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a mistake, to be honest! I was trying to roll back all the edits you made removing categories and must of hit rollback on that one by mistake. As you may of seen, I didn't do all of them in the end anyway as it was taking too long. If it hasn't been done already, I may try and get a bot to do it - hopefully it will pay closer attention than I did! :) Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, that's a far more logical reason than mine... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there is right now in progress a deletion review on "Human disguise", with the comments running strongly in favor of overturning the deletion, may I ask whether — if the article is reinstated — you plan to restore all the wikilinks yourself, or leave that work for others? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Update: "Human disguise" has been undeleted. Would you please restore all the wikilinks to it that you removed? Thanks. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted all your 2000AD category edits, I can find no consensus for the edits, no discussion and they were made in breach of the speedy deletion process outlined at WP:CFD as an objection had been made. I would ask you to revert all your recent changes. Please note I will also be discussing this at the administrator's notice board, where I hope an acceptable outcome can be reached. Hiding T 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to slow down just a little. Instead of questioning the way I am doing things, I think you need to examine why you have done things. First of all, you need to explain why you proceeded with these changes in disregard of the process. You've created a situation here through your actions, now is not the time to criticise those people who have to resolve that situation because "it is 4:30 in the morning where [you are] and [you were] getting ready to go to bed soon". Hiding T 09:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not in any way being aggressive. I am asking you quite reasonably why you have carried out your actions in direct contravention of the processes. As yet you have failed to answer that reasonable request. I am confused as to why you are not answering the request. I found this portion of your message to which I was responding to be critical of my actions rather than an explanation of your actions: 'If you are removing these speedy changes, I am confused as to why you did not list them below "Nominations with objections or that don't meet speedy criteria will be dropped from this list if not taken to a full CfD."' Perhaps you could explain where you believe the problem lies if it does not in fact lie with the fact that you have recategorised an enormous amount of categories and articles with no consensus and in the face of objections and process. Hiding T 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm being dense, since I don't understand what your diff is showing me. Apologies, but could you clarify. Hiding T 09:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I can't understand in what sense you made such an oversight. Perhaps you could clarify how you failed to understand what was meant by "Oppose all dab-related nominations listed above by Good Olfactory, Koavf, and Tassedethe." Hiding T 10:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Koavf and renaming of categories. I am now going tpo attempt to undo the huge amount of changes you have made without consensus, so I may not have time to cover that and respond. Hiding T 09:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Under the terms of your probation at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I am topic banning you from adding or removing categories from any page. Hiding T 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify, this also means you may not move any page from one category to another. At the moment, this ban is indefinitely, but that is subject to change pending discussion. Hiding T 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Discography about a red link artist? Easy G8 candidate (subpage without parent page). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see R.E.M.'s official website (esp. discography) @ http://remhq.com/albums.php. This should clarify the original credit for the album in question... Doc9871 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm responding on your talk page. You have now twice removed an officially listed credit and a reference/link to R.E.M.'s official website. I advise you to explain the reasoning behind your removal of this officially referenced edit... Doc9871 (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2009 (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.