User talk:Koavf/Archive034

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

	The Original Barnstar
	WOW 1 million edits! I feel privileged giving you this barnstar. SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have no objection, I'll like to create a mainspace article on you. You have been widely covered in the media. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same but here[1] you put a thoroughbred tag in on the talk page for a harness racing category. I don't know if the TB project covers harness, but looking around at some other harness racing talk pages, American harness racers is the only one I see with the TB project link on the talk page....William 18:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not categorize by language sung in when the lamnguage in question is the premier language in the place in question. For example, we do not categorize American singers as English-language singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you nominated three large Wikipedias. Such an action almost always fails, as you should know. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You tagged this 1970s sports article with Category:English-language albums and Category:2012 albums. Did an automated edit go awry? Maybe there are other mistakes. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You also put The Smashing Pumpkins in the Category "Musical Trios". I would recommend slowing down. Ridernyc (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

From

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristic—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections.

In other words simply because band may have played as a trio for 6 months while they were looking for a drummer there is not justification to put them in the category musical trios. Once again slow down. Ridernyc (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you link the page where i can request to be an Admin on here! N64dude (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to change your proposal to merge to Category:Online companies here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_26? --KarlB (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you said that the album was a soundtrack album because it was used in a musical and that there are sources in the article? but I cannot find it. I've done my research online and found nothing about Here Lies Love being a musical/broadway play on any theater.

Remember what a soundtrack album is: "any album that incorporates music directly recorded from the soundtrack of a particular feature film or broadway musical". Do not confuse a

on the other hand are "unified by a theme, which can be instrumental, narrative, or lyrical." They tend to incorporate a musical-like album with all of its songs contributing to a single overall story of an album.

A good example is Jay-Z's studio album American Gangster (album) which was inspired by film of the same name. Keep in mind that none of its songs were included/played on the film of the same name. It is also considered a 'studio' album and not a soundtrack album for that matter so the same should apply for Here Lies Love.

Hope you understand their differences.

) 22:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thank you for helping me on my article on St. John's Lutheran Church :)Grasch2014 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, really? Seems like you did more... that is what it has on the history though. Thank you always---Grasch2014 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Would you like to comment at

) 01:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have recently archived the entire talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices even though some of the threads are not very old. Could you please revert your edit as this was an unnecessary action, perhaps consider a 180d or older archive....thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article talk ) 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
· · ·

Why did you tag Category:1960s albums and a few related cats with {diffuse}? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Justin, I saw your post at Template talk:Infobox album and have a question. I frequently add album cover images but don't add alt text. For an album cover would you just put 'image of album x cover art' or actualy describe the image? Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying makes perfect sense, thanks J04n(talk page) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, was this just a slip with HotCat, changing when you meant to add? – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

– Fayenatic London (talk)

Hey Justin, you'll notice that I have opposed the nomination and offered to work with you on a peer review. I think the reason I gave (lots of minor issues) might be the reason you're not attracting many reviewers – it's why I did nothing a month ago when I saw you re-nominated. I scanned the article and saw more issues than I wanted to help you work through in a FAC, but they were all minor, so I was reluctant to oppose. So I ultimately decided to leave it to the more committed reviewers I thought were sure to show up. Of course, if everyone felt that way nothing would get accomplished, which seems to be where we are.

Anyway, if you start the peer review, let me know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

--

) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can remove this note, because I don't care about it that much actually. I'm done with it, you can just revert if you want, problem solved I guess. --

) 01:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're trying to get my images taken down? Why? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care anymore about ANY other categories, but everything under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_characters needs to stay clear of redirects. As it is right now.

We're doing really hard work to have only notable articles in these categories. And every year there are thousands of new games, each featuring multiple individual characters (even hundreds or thousands, in some cases).

Please cooperate. --

) 07:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, really. We had thousands of video game characters redirected (there are only over 300 that still exist), but there are no redirects in any categories. Seriously. And it' not even because of me, that's how it is for years, and it was a good thing. Please don't change it all of sudden. --

) 07:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BECAUSE that's how it was for YEARS, since the merging began in 2007, due to an unspoken agreement between all the editors. Go and check, there are just no redirects there. If something is there, it's either notable or not merged yet. The is ABSOLUTELY no reason for it to be messed. Look, I specifically created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_characters_by_year_of_introduction (like there's a similar article for comic book characters) few days ago so they won't be lost in the sea of redirect in the general categories. Can't you really cooperate? I don't mind ANY other categories, which is over 99%. --

) 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And we care so much that

) 08:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that's how it ALWAYS was, and because I ask you (that's only you who's doing it). --

) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, they were actually always being categorized by their way of introduction. But you know what, I'm tired of all this pleading like that. Are you really so un-cooperative that you can't do such even a minor thing when someone asks you nicely? --

) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

One, actually yes, I would, probably. Two, if you don't even really know what I ask you for, then never mind, I'll take care of it myself. It's not any big thing after all, just please don't disrupt. EOD and have a nice day. --

) 08:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And on a final sidenote, just let me quote Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#When to categorize a redirect:

"Most redirects should not be placed in article categories. There are, however, maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those."

That's what it reads, italics as in original. You must have totally misunderstood it, because you're doing the opposite. Anyway, I don't care about other categories outside of video games, so you might keep doing it despite this clear directive to not be doing it (no, really I don't care, just telling you that you can stop right now if you want). Good bye. --

) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please stop nominating non-free content with the reasoning "image is not discussed critically".

16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

Wikipedia:NFCI explicitly states: "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." Hundreds of screenshots that were purely ornamental were deleted for this exact reason--see e.g. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_February_14#File:30_Rock_season_1_episode_1.png. What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 16:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The image is for discussing the work. But the image itself does not have to be discussed. It's sufficient that the text alludes to the image's content and the image is helpful for the reader to better understand what the text is talking about. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use But by that rationale, couldn't we include dozens of screencaps on each of these articles that illustrate all manner of things being discussed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits of the Essential Records categories? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your mail about your proposal and sorry I didn't get involved but I rarely use the site now as I'm too busy. I see your proposal was in any event rejected which is good because the logic, as a few people pointed out, is in the historical context. I don't do century years. There is a cricket history reason for 1787, etc. Century years look neat but they make no sense. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for an objective opinion for

) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse

pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article George Orwell bibliography know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on June 4, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 4, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the Wikimania date is that it will be on Thursday (TFLs are only on Mondays). The nearest dates are July 9, 2012, which already has selected an article, and July 16. If you want the date changed, you can contact The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and they'll do so. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved, per your request. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, no need to say thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you have recently designated the article Diasystem as a "stub" on the assessment quality scale, but through its length and breadth, it doesn't seem like it fits the criteria of a stub. A quick glance at your recent contributions show similar issues at other articles. Am I missing something? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Same with

Hantsavichy Radar Station. It's clearly start class - you just copied the stub from the old WP Russia template? There's no point in making edits like this. Secretlondon (talk

) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Olympic sport templates

Why did you redirect this template without comment? Did you realise that the two templates have different link sets? SFB 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Because one links to the sport and the other links to that sport at the Olympics?? SFB 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The original navbox remains transcluded on all of the articles linked on it. That navbox serves as a link between the main descriptions of those sports, rather than the Olympic specific ones. Many readers want to traverse between different Olympic sports articles (such as

Athletics (sport) to Swimming (sport) to Archery) rather than just having the option to move between only the more narrowly focused Athletics at the Summer Olympics, Swimming at the Summer Olympics and Archery at the Summer Olympics? Surely you must see that a reader interested in the Olympics would like to jump from the general descriptions of Taekwondo to Rowing (sport)? SFB

19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW I have no issue with expanding the former template to include the other sports not yet added, although one could argue that Frisian handball has very very little to do with the Olympics. SFB 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting the template and opening up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics to see whether there is consensus to redirect. SFB 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop randomly tagging articles as stubs! You are clearly not checking them before you are doing it - and you certainly won't have read the guidelines for each wikiproject (which vary). If you continue you are in danger of being blocked. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dear Friend,

I'm Muddyb, Wikipedian based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - hereby letting you know that I've blogged about you on my blog. That's all. Thanks!!!--

) 10:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The pleasure is all mine, Justin! You're welcome!!!--

Longa

) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Country soundtracks, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, you, being a vegetarian may be interested in the fact I got my daily recommended intake of protein in just thirty minutes in purely vegetarian sources... I ate just two 420g cans of baked beans and 500mls of Milk and this contains the recommended daily intake of protein and has a good distribution of amino acids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuse809 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This website: http://nutritiondata.self.com/ is truly a blessing. It contains information not only on the protein content of foods but the distribution of the amino acids in a food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuse809 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

is this advertising spam dude?

talk

)

how did you revert me so fast? i didnt even get a chance to add a source to the

) 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit [2] was just plain dumb. Any med chemist knows that rhodanines are the prototypical "frequent hitter" that test positive for anything in any kind of assay. Check here [3] for example - yes, this blog is amongst the reputable ones in the trade.

I do have the sneaking suspicion that you have no idea about rhodanines, medicininal chemistry or anything else. If you do it doesn't show in your Wikikpedia contributions.

Thank you for your attention, and see you again next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.130.21 (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, do you know how Category:People by city or town in Western Sahara became empty, please? There was at least one sub-cat when I created it. RSVP here. – Fayenatic London (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I replaced it with

db-author}}, I will. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for notifying me--I just made a sloppy assumption. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I've deleted the empty one. I trust you have no problem with the new one being a sub-cat of Category:Sahrawi people, which I have added? – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories That's fine, but mildly ridiculous to me. The

Sahrawi people are an ethnic group and not every person who lives in that city is actually from that people (e.g. Acacio Valbuena Rodríguez and Félix Erviti Barcelona, who are Spaniards--and the latter is almost certainly Basque.) But it seems like this is commonly accepted, no matter how nonsensical, so I don't object on those grounds. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:British Ecological Society publications

Category:British Ecological Society publications, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Koavf, I was just curious how you go about finding the USA articles so effectively and tag them with the USA articles appropriately. I have been working on assessing their quality, but I've noted you have done quite a large amount on May 20th. The articles are almost perfect in tagging, but they are consistently missing the importance= tag for WP:USA, but they have the state variant importance, which is a good thing. I still have a sneaking suspicion more then a million articles for WP:USA are not tagged under their banner and as a part of the 1.0 team, completeness is key. I wish you could show me how you do this and work on categories. I'm running out of work to do and I see you are very prolific in those areas. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think removing the categories for atheists from the "people by religion" trees should probably be discussed before implemented. I understand the idea that atheism is not a religion, but it seems logical to me to categorize people who are atheists in the same category with those who profess specific religious beliefs. To me, upmerging them all to "FOOian people" instead of "FOOian people by religion" doesn't seem to be an improvement for navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For being the first editor to surpass 1 million edits and for being of vital importance to website maintenance. Amazing! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I have the uttermost respect for editors on here who take a step back and view the project as a whole and are willing to work on most topics and make edits to the benefit of the whole project. You, Aymatth2, Rosiestep, Ipigott, Emirjp seem to share this perspective with me and exactly what wikipedia can be or develop to be without systematic bias or limitation as an encyclopedia of this magnitude should be.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:22, 30 May 2012 (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.