User talk:Koavf/Archive028

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User talk:Koavf archives

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

.

Your edit here is not referenced in the article. The original vinyl, nor the cassette copy, or the CD version of the album had ANY liner notes, other than a list of the musicians etc. There is nothing in the article to substantiate your claim that Greil Marcus wrote any liner notes for the album - or a few others you have tagged with this claim. Staying within the realms of semi-politeness, I can only describe some of your recent additions to WP as "mindless editing." If you are really interested in getting your edit count higher I suggest you look at your edits over the past few months and see which ones need undoing! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the Dylan article and at no point is there a claim that Marcus did liner notes for Blonde on Blonde - or any other Dylan album, for that matter (although he did). It does also seem pertinent to check what the article says, which you have not done! And, yes, I wanted your edits brought to another's attention, how any other contributor to WP views your actions is another matter. You can respond here if you prefer, but I'd rather this was laid to rest now. I've said all I wish to say and have no intention of retracting anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case the whole category is misleading and should be deleted. There are liner notes on SOME of the re-issues. Hardly noteable. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Category now nominated for deletion.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Spot the typo :) I'd fix it, but it seems I can't. Regards, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut." Your continued actions and the OTHER people's comments in the section give plenty of suggestions to support my assumption of your motives . . . which were not even part of the question I posed. This was not a personal attack. I didn't even name you in the comment, it was a passing statement to advance beyond to short term issue that had been resolved. Resolved with you being penalized for your misuse of the AWB tool, I will point out. Perhaps knowing what motivates your own actions, you

) 00:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the quote, I believe care is being exercised. It was not my intention to besmirch you with heavy hand, but rather to draw on the negative implications of a poorly thought comment. To the extent mine was poorly thought, I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Big Day (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Day (album) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --

) 05:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you created Category:Jews from Thessaloniki as a sub-cat of Category:Thessalonian Jews. Are they not one and the same? Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't break the wiki! ;) Protonk (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah but there is still another tool for mass creation. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I thought Dan was the one who shot those! But you emailed them, so I got a bit puzzled. Thanks for correcting me! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is important, though, to keep in mind that the subject of your work might not be public domain. Also, photos of living people require their consent, which is why stock photos of people tend to be of the same subjects over and over and why BLPs are such dangerous articles to put images in. But I'm glad to have met you as well! See you at the WEP summit in the summer, or before then, perhaps! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Simanek ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Justin. I'd be happy for you to come by the museum on any Tuesday or Wednesday, if you're able, to touch base and just to allow us to host you for a fun visit (just couldn't be a whole collections tour.) We'd definitely like to keep you in the loop as we move forward with sharing more content. We need to gather up a solid contingency of helpers (even if everyone just does a little.) Also, there's talk of a city-wide Wikipedian-in-Residence position that we may need this fall in preparation for the super bowl. (Shhh... :) So keep that in mind. Thanks Justin! LoriLee (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of your recommendation below, i incorporated some information into Name of the Czech Republic article, that were (as in the case of the original article) completely (word by word) deleted without any discussion or notice by Mewulwe user. I think it is sufficient proof, that the war has been continued, but not from my side. As the incidence of deleting facts is so frequent, that nothing i write endures on the page longer that one hour, i hope you will understand, that my patience is over and i don´t need to feel paranoic, if i declare, that it is an arbitrary act of that user.

Edit-war It looks like your draft of this article has some good content, but I think it would be more better to incorporate that into

)

Link breaking

In this edit you broke links to three audio files, which have all consequently been deleted as unused fair-use files. Similarly in this edit. Presumably there are many similar edits that I haven't come across yet. Please could you fix the links that you have broken, and get the files undeleted (e.g., at

) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI Koavf, as regards edits like this, see

xeno^talk

16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums by liner notes author

Now at nominated for deletion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered,

23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

New categories

Hello Koavf, we're a little confused by some of your new categories/application—please could you comment here? TIA, Uniplex (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, plz take a look at Death-Fuse and join the Afd disscution. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums by artist and record label, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koavf. Can you please ensure you check the edits you make using AWB... You appear to have added duplicate {{linkrot}} tags to a load of articles, here are some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... Cheers,

11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, I had previously announced an intention to rollback a good deal of these edits. Given this new information about the quality of the edits, I may move up the planned reversal date. –xeno^talk 12:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that discussion is closed... I can provide more examples of the above behaviour at request, there are many >.<

stoned

13:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me a rough idea as to how many are still the "(top)" edit and how many have had edits since? –xeno^talk 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've not been looking at Koavf's edits specifically, just been doing some reflink-ing of articles found via a Google search. Of those I have seen that were added by Koavf, I'd say ~75% have had 2 tags and ~15% were the latest edit...

stoned

14:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm - Koavf tagged over ten thousand with barelink and I only found a few left with dupe tags:

Inside the Station – Remix EP; Iron Flowers (Repeater album); Lemar discography. –xeno^talk

14:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, since my last mesage here I've found and fixed 1, 2, 3 & 4... I reckon there are a few more than that!

stoned

14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your query might be wrong; first page I was about to reflink after my last batch:

14:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange. My regex must be off: I am admittedly rusty. I can query it another way. –xeno^talk 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Still only found a few:

; Funeral (album); ; Iron Flowers (Repeater album); Lemar discography; ; Sacred Groove; Sally Can't Dance; Tesla discography; The Pistol; Thunder discography;

–xeno^talk 14:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed those, will give you a shout if I find others!

stoned

16:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't be positive but based on the information provided and that I've found, I am fairly confident the albums such as

are released as compilations of earlier recordings and not actually released in the years stated in the Benny Goodman article.

• One, according to Allmusic, the recordings usually cover a range of time extending past the year stated.
• Two, albums as we know them were not commonly released at the time but were found on 78s or some other sort of phonograph, more like singles.
• Three, record labels such as GRP and Prestige that are noted on both the article and the allmusic listing of the albums often did not exist at the time the article claims they were released.

My feeling is that the release dates came from bennygoodman.com, which they seem to be listing the earliest recording date and not necessarily the release date. I'm going through the entire Benny Goodman discography list and will be updating it as soon as I can with correct release dates, or maybe both recording and release dates. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jarkeld (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Milton Okun, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't check, the map you're restoring is based on an image found on facebook, look here: [6]. Also added by a problematic user constantly evading his block.

) 06:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A map yes, any map no.

talk

) 10:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The alternative is to make a map that is properly cited to reliable sources.

talk

) 03:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy request, as I think it doesn't fit in the category. It's a test record, not a record with a 'performer' who would be expected to have an article. If you still feel strongly that it should go, you should use PROD or AfD. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And another. LoriLee (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted some vandalism for you. GoingBatty (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for adding categories to Wax Museum, Vol. 1‎ and Sands of Time. LongLiveMusic (talk ) 04:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• This discussion is now in
  Talk:2005 Qur'an desecration controversy#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 06:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Breaking bad

Hey Justin. I do still plan on working on the Breaking Bad articles, and I've been saving the articles as they've been written about that show (and podcasts as they've been recorded) so I can write about the individual episodes later. I needed to take a bit of a wikibreak because of real-life circumstances, but I do plan to go back and work on them down the road, probably within a few weeks. If you'd like to work on them in the meantime, by all means go for it, but I definitely haven't forgotten about them and hope to work on them again soon. — Hunter Kahn 17:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, i was removing pointless categories, but that one is good. It was mistake. (I am not sure that rollback was good solution, it was AGF edit.) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! You too! :) WhiteWriter speaks 09:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a late-blooming R.E.M. fan and I haven't been too wowed by the latest albums (Accelerate and Collapse Into Now were alright), but still, this breakup can't help but feel weighty. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey about R.E.M., EMI, and the back catalog: we need a source if we want to claim a date for when EMI bought the back-catalog (and precisely how much they bough), and another source if we are to claim that they issued those comps to capitalize on the band's success. Until we can find such sources, the best we can do is the very dry-and-plain "EMI released this compilation in this given year"--that way we avoid claims that carry too many assumptions. Sound good? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My philosophy on media is "Great if it's available; don't need to overdue it". It's especially great that you've found clear pics of Berry and Mills--for years we didn't have any on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to avoid image overload, which can distort the prose in certain browsers and can cause loading problems. One rule of thumb I try to follow is if a section has a soundclip, it probably doesn't need a photo (of course, there can be exceptions). Place the image at the top of the section for maximum clearance at the bottom. I also want to avoid anything that too tangential, like the image of the school Stipe attempted--a photo of a specific location mentioned the section would be waaaaay stronger. Also, I figure you noticed that I changed the alignment for some pics. One of the neat things I've learned in FAC over the years is that it's strongly recommended that pages have images of subjects looking to the right left-aligned, and vice versa. That way, the gaze of the subjects draws the reader inward to the text! WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Per what I mentioned before: is there anything you think might mutually interest us for a potential project? I'm slowly getting out of a low activity period I've been locked into due to off-Wiki writing duties. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Justin, can you please diffuse the Western mystics category as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_4#Category:Western_mystics? Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's not your responsibility. I just thought you might have a plan. Well, I don't know anything about it, so I'm going to upmerge the whole thing and let people who understand the distinctions sort it out if they like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koavf. Thanks for alerting people to which articles contain bare urls. It's worth noting that the advice is to tag the reference section rather than the top of the article. And while I understand that sometimes one is too busy to do the work oneself (I will often tag an article I am reading with issues that I don't have time to deal with myself, but which I feel I shouldn't simply ignore), I have noted that you sometimes have focused simply on tagging. It is more helpful to the project as a whole if people spent some time working on correcting the issues. If people have a choice of using their time to tag a hundred pages, or cleaning up one article, it is better to clean up the one article. A bare url reference, while not ideal, and discouraged, is better than no reference at all. A person may have simply put in the bare url because they were busy, or didn't have the knowledge to format the reference properly; they may have hoped that someone else might come along and do the right thing by formatting the reference for them. That is how Wikipedia improves and gets better. While your tag is intended to help improve Wikipedia, in effect it is doing less than the person who added the reference in the first place, as it is simply adding to the huge backlogs that we have on the project. The genuine improvement is to do the formatting that is required. Perhaps when the bare url backlog is reduced to a few hundred articles you might consider tagging again (in the appropriate section). In the meantime, if you really want to help the linkrot situation, there are over 16,000 articles needing attention (over 13,000 of those were tagged in August, and appear to be mostly by you). None of this is a complaint, as we each help Wikipedia in our own way; but simply a pointer as to how you can help more productively, and by creating less work for other editors (each time I come upon an article with a bare url tag at the top, I move it down to the reference section). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked at your talkpage history first. I note that the issue has been raised, and that you have undertaken not to do any more tagging. As there is considerable feeling that your actions were inappropriate and unhelpful, would you consider going though the thousands of articles you have tagged and either a)format the references, b)remove the tag if there are only a few bare urls and/or c) move the tag to either the talkpage or the reference section. I think you might recover some good will among your fellow editors if you did this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have added a number of cats to

11:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, you are of course correct - bit of brain fade on my part.... --ClubOranje^T 05:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent change Per

☯ 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The REM album chronology appears to be mixed up with films and dvds - was that part of the intention as far as you are aware? I was using the infobox as a handy way to get from one album to the other, but was misdirected a couple of times to films, which then resulted in a deviant route that didn't return to the albums. That wasn't helpful. I did note that some articles had a separate listing for compilation albums, and that seems useful. Is there one for dvds and videos as far as you are aware? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and there is a separate field for films and videos. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noted that you removed an appropriate and encouraged link. See

10:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus by those dealing in media copyright is that the link to the Romanian government internet site is legitimate - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Radio3net. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justin! It was a pleasure to finally meet you the other night! I hope you don't mind some friendly (but important) spam:

) 20:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the AfD nomination for you. You had not added it to the log.-gadfium 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Must See TV Thursday has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justin, how's it going? I hope all's well. I've been cleaning up the Community Trolls article and am hoping to possibly bring it to GA—but I'm still polishing it, so it's not quite ready yet. It's a small point, but for my timeline, I'm trying to figure out when in 1984 Matthew Sweet quit Oh-OK. In the The Complete Recordings (Oh-OK album) article, it says Sweet was still with them for their April 1984 concert that's included on the CD. I noticed you made lots of edits to the article. Do you happen to have The Complete Recordings? If so, would you be able to confirm whether its liner notes specify that Sweet was present for that show? My other question is, if you have time, whether you would be interested in having a quick peek at the Community Trolls article before I nominate it for GA. If you had any suggestions, or if you saw any edits you wanted to make, the input would be welcome. But of course, only if you have time. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Wanted to call to your attention a slight error in Category:Albums produced by Cannonball Adderly - His last name is spelled "Adderley". I think we could do one of two things - Either get an admin to do a rename, or, just create a second category, change all the individual pages to match the correct spelling, and then redirect the old category to the new one. KConWiki (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.