| Revision as of 22:08, 27 October 2009 editLeahtwosaints (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,744 edits →Greetings← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:48, 28 October 2009 edit undoRadiopathy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,608 edits →The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
| I have been editing articles on en.wikipedia for a couple of years, but began to take note of the incredible number of ] articles for ]ians that have either inferior, outdated, or mostly, no photo whatsoever. I began learning to ask photographers on ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ], 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!--] (]) 15:55, 27 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a couple of years, but began to take note of the incredible number of ] articles for ]ians that have either inferior, outdated, or mostly, no photo whatsoever. I began learning to ask photographers on ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ], 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!--] (]) 15:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : OK I was just feeling around for a little help. No harm! --] (]) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | : OK I was just feeling around for a little help. No harm! --] (]) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland == | |||
| The "PVO" 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 ] 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 Greter 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. <b>]</b> ] 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:48, 28 October 2009
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will probably respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.
Per the stream of edits such as your edit to Everything is Beautiful , there is an interaction between the specificity of articles about a particular song by a particular band, and the specificity of categories, that it appears you were unfamiliar with. Just to clarify, any article specifically about a specific Smashing Pumpkins release, such as Doomsday Clock (song), can be tagged with Category: Smashing Pumpkins songs, but not articles about songs by another band that SP has covered, such as Everything is Beautiful or Monster Mash. Anarchangel (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started that discussion I mentioned...
...at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music#"By-artist" categorization of cover songs. Your input there is welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Italicizing article titles
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Age Ain't Nothing But a Number capitalization
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 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 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 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Album
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)
Defaultsort and refs
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.
DMB
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)
Thumbs up
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)
Roman Polanski
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)
Polanski see talk
What is there to see on the talk? This is also under discussion at BLP noticeboard.Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1
Copy this to at least three other talk pages.--Iusepencils. (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Langauge categories
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) 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks I was not aware of that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thich
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.) Misplaced Pages: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)
Sort keys
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. 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)
Category:Democrats for Life of America
I strongly urge you to read up on how we use cats on Misplaced Pages, and stop inappropriately adding Category:Democrats for Life of America to articles. -Andrew c 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 Misplaced Pages: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 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_13#Category:Democrats_for_Life_of_America. -Andrew c 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Moving 867-5309/Jenny to 867‒5309/Jenny
There was already a discussion over at WP:MOS about this. Do not revert.— Dædαlus 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 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 06:22, 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)
- 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 06:13, 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 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)
- He meant me.
- Wow I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing SarekOfVulcan.
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)
Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography
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)
when you added cats to Bahá'u'lláh
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)
Economic history of Modern China
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)
Manual processing
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 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Snooker moves
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 ~~ 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Categories
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)
AfD nomination of List of African Union member states by population
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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
UK
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)
Greetings
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 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The "PVO" 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 Greter 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)