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.
You were the one who tried to make Category:American novelists a container category, and even though that was oveturned because of the fact that List of American novelsits for now belongs there, no one has directly challenged the general sentiment. However some editors have tried special pleading for a few specific cases, normally through presenting no cohenent arguments and special overturnings. The first 10 articles in the category are already in by century sub-cats, but have all been returned multiple times without any real justification against the diffusion, sometimes by people who have made no arguments against the by century categories. I am afraid to try again for fear of getting into an edit war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I keep telling people to nominate categories for deletion, but the person who does most of this actually says they think the by century categories should exist. So I really don't know. There is talk of an RfC on the American novelists category talk page, but I really do not see an RfC as the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
mass nominations should be grouped together is one
Since you are making the same copy and paste arguments for dozens/hundreds of articles, just list them altogether, so its easier to respond to. And all Wikipedia articles for a television episode have screenshots. Please don't go around individually nominated ten thousand articles. You understand more about the episode when you see what the characters and scenery and whatnot look like. DreamFocus01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Mass noms If you do that, then you have to untangle the discussions about the merits of each individual fair use rationale, and it is definitely not true that all article on Wikipedia about television episodes have screenshots. See WP:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, e.g. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Do to lack of people noticing and participating, you have managed to mass delete massive numbers of images over a period of time. Even when people do show up and say keep, the administrator might rule in your favor anyway, depending on their personal bias. If all articles are going to have their images deleted from them, then this should be discussed at the village pump. Get more feed back. DreamFocus01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you have nothing else to do. No matter, over time most, I suspect will just have new images upladed by another editor. Enjoy padding your edit count Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I respect your good faith in nominating this large batch of Star Trek images for deletion per WP:NFCC, but I agree with Dream Focus that something like this needs to be reviewed via a wider community discussion before anyone takes any action on these proposed deletions. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
'Okay But I don't understand this at all: NFCC is clear and has been stable for the nine years that I've been here, plus the onus is on the uploader. Why is there a need for centralized discussion when it's patently clear that many of these files (if not all of them) fail with NFURs? What is the venue that you propose? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I personally think that both the nomination of these images and the fact that you purposely chose not to group them as a mass nomination are a violation of WP:POINT. My advice would have been to nominate one image, see its end result, then go from there. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
FURs Each fair use nomination needs to rest on its own merits, so there is no way that I can see group nominating them. This isn't like CFD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's all about the efficiency of the deletion process. How will Justin get his work done if other people question them? Damnit, these articles won't delete themselves, you know! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I agree that quite a few of the episode images are not going to meet the FUR and can be deleted. However, you did run through the ones where they aren't placed for illustrative purposes. Basically any of them that are Good Articles and have been promoted since November last year will have been worked on by me, and I either updated the image purpose (and in some cases changed the image) or simply removed it in each case if no image was required to further the understanding of the reader. Essentially I included fair use images on the basis that if something is described in the text of the article but is more easily understood by the use of an image then it was suitable to be used. This obviously doesn't happen in most cases. The problem is with the Star Trek episode articles is that the vast, vast majority of them are simply plot descriptions right now, and so cannot possibly meet that requirement. Also some follow a certain pattern - i.e. if there is an image of one or more main characters not doing anything particularly unusual then it'll never meet a FUR. I wouldn't oppose deleting all images from the episode articles where they don't have any obvious use, even if the article is simply a plot and not much else - because the images are easy enough to replace due to online resources and so when someone eventually expands the article they can always add one back under an appropriate FUR if required (one that isn't based on illustration). Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Context I did, in fact, take a look at the context of these images and decided to not nominate some that displayed something genuinely unique. On the other hand, there are instances (e.g. File:In_a_Mirror,_Darkly_(ENT_episode)_Part_I.jpg) where free equivalents are in the article displaying the same thing as the non-free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Image deletions
Thanks for flooding my talk page with fifty image deletion notices - I think ONE message probably could have done the trick. Likewise, when you flood my talk page you also flood my email with stupid alerts from Wikipedia telling EACH TIME you do it. For the record, I don't care about images I uploaded that you feel you need to purge from Wikipedia for whatever reason, so you can quit spamming my talk page. Have fun deleting things. Cyberia23 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay If you don't want me to post to your talk, that's fine but it's hardly spam. If you want to know why the images should be deleted, you can read my rationale and compare it to the standards at WP:NFCC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Koavf. With regards to the comment above about putting a lot of deletion notices on one talk page, {{Fdw-multi}} could be used instead. According to the documentation for Twinkle, the notify option can be turned off. Then you could just notify the editor at the end with the combined template. Just a thought. If you already knew all of this was a possible option, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
O.K. You should see what Rkitko decided to do!: He decided to harass me here. After what I warned him here. And he opened a discussion about my behavior without my knowledge here. Can you talk to him about this, because I just can't discuss it with a guy who hates me!--Mishae (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure That's probably the most accurate. You should only go there if you've followed the guidelines on that page (e.g. posting directly to the user's talk, just ignoring the situation to see if it goes away, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯14:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your unexplained deletions. Please leave comments at Talk:Joanne Gair regarding FUR complaints. I will address them.
2006 North Korea Flooding talk page redirect
Why?
Because that talk page, as it was an as you restored it to, is broken....the page is in "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding", which is why I noticed it
Because a 'talk page' for a redirect is pointless anyhow...about the only way you would land on it is by noticing that it is causing an error.
Because I come across them (and change them to redirects) on a regular basis, simply because an admin suggested it as a 'more convenient' way to fix the problem than tagging them for G8 speedy delete (as it doesn't require admin action)
Because there are /thousands/ of pointless orphan talk pages like this spamming the hell out of 'cleanup' categories (I've seen them be a third of the category)
Because you're specifically /not/ supposed to create Talk pages for 'non-article' pages (redirects, categories) just to hold WikiProject banners, and 'effectively' doing the same thing in 'reverse' with a page move is just as silly.
Shall I go on?
By the way, it is specifically stated in WP:TALK: "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use."
FWIW, a revert with a summary of "Why" is inappropriate, especially using an automated tool. You should have a /reason/ for edits with Twinkle, not just 'randomly preserving the status quo' for no actual reason. To quote TW:ABUSE "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
Glancing at your edit history, I see that you /habitually/ create these pointless talk pages with AWB, and don't even bother to fill out the WikiProject banners properly. The only thing this accomplishes is to spam the database with pointless crap, and spam the ALREADY MASSIVELY BACKLOGGED 'unassessed articles' categories with useless cruft.
As a side note (I just noticed this) if you bothered to read the documentation for the project banners, you would know that they are only to be placed on ARTICLE TALK PAGES, not talk pages for categories. You are really giving the impression (from your edit history, userpage, and what's on this talk page) of (IMO) disrupting wikipedia with automated editing tools in an attempt to pad your edit count. Revent (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages First off I think you misunderstand WP:TALK. I created the talk page initially as I created the article: I didn't make a talk page to a page that didn't otherwise exist.
Why do you think that the Redirect class is pointless?
Which project banners were not filled out correctly?
The redirect class is not pointless...creating a talk page just to hold wikiproject banners (and nothing else) is pointless, and against policy. I see from your edit history where you've literally created over 500 Template talk pages containing nothing but a Wikiproject template in just two days, literally thousands of Category Talk templates as well, all of which have NOTHING on them but a Wikiproject template....which is pointless. It's just spamming the database with useless crap. "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use." (directly from WP:TALK) is pretty easy to understand....don't create tens of thousands is even easier.
The 'broken' template I was talking about was, literally, the only one on the talk page, and as I said, the talk page was in the "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding" category.
The /specific/ thing that it incredibly irritating is that when you create talk pages for redirects you are spamming the fuck out of the 'unassessed articles' categories, because you aren't filling out the templates. This /vastly/ increases the pain in the ass level of trying to work on that backlog, as EVERY SINGLE ONE of those redirect talk pages is 'categorized' wrong. From what I've seen, I'd estimate this applies to about a third of the 150,000+ unassessed biographies.
Looking at just your recent edits, within the last hour you redirected the Brass Tactics article, immediately created a talk page for the redirect to only hold wikiproject banners, and (of course) broke the "WikiProject Alternative music" banner with an invalid parameter (the class=redirect).
And yes, I have seen the edits where you nominated a page for deletion, and then IMMEDIATELY created an empty Talk page for it. Please explain how there is even the slightest point to that?
If you look at template:WPBannerMeta the DEFAULT behavior of ALL WikiProject banners is to NOT have a 'redirect' class unless the particular project has defined a 'custom class mask' to create one. Specifically, if you look at the documentation for template:WikiProject Biography, you will see that 'redirect' is NOT a valid class. Even more specifically, if you look at Template:WikiProject Biography/class, the 'custom class mask' for Biographies, 'redirect' is again not listed.
You are responsible for your edits with AWB, and that /includes/ not 'automatically' breaking shit.
To be honest, as I mentioned above, these 'talk pages for redirects' are candidates for G8 speedy deletion {{db-talk}} and (again as I mentioned) I was specifically told 'please just make these redirects instead of trying to delete them because now that they exist it would be pointless' by an admin.
BTW, using Twinkle to revert good faith edits is highly offensive, as you're basically calling the other editor a vandal, and with the edit summary you used is /specifically/ 'abuse of anti-vandalism tools'. Not ignoring that point would probably be a good thing if you wan to have a 'friendly' conversation. Revent (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Tools If you want me to be respectful to you, a good start is being respectful to me.
WT:TALK does not refer to creating talk pages to hold WikiProject banners. I don't understand how on the one hand you can say that creating talk pages for WikiProject banners is pointless but on the other hand say that the Redirect class is not pointless. To be frank, you don't understand WT:TALK and you're contradicting yourself.
Do you know of any instances other than {{WPKOREA}} where I added a banner that resulted in the addition of some kind of maintenance category? My sneaking suspicion is that there isn't one (or there are few), making the rest of your gripe irrelevant. I haven't added a bunch of redirects for assessment because (again, correct me if I'm wrong) no banner with the class Redirect requires assessment. E.g. the example you gave of Talk:Brass Tactics includes {{album}} which accepts class=Redirect and {{WPALT}} which doesn't: neither one is put into a maintenance category. Show me a maintenance category that I have populated or else you're just rambling on about nothing in particular. I don't see anywhere that I've added {{WPBIO}} with class=Redirect and when you do, it is not added to Category:Unassessed biography articles. So what on Earth are you talking about?
The purpose of nominating something for deletion and then adding appropriate banners is two-fold: on the one hand, something might not get deleted. Why would I want to come back to it then and add the banners? On the other hand, marking it with a banner allows bots to add it to deletion discussions or possibly just gives it some visibility to users (such as yourself) who stroll through these WikiProject categories. As you can see, what's really pointless is making the talk page a redirect to match the article space, as then no one would be watching it in case something funny happens to it. Also, sometimes redirects are turned into articles and sometimes articles are turned into redirects.
You're being a fussy crank here on my talk. Calm down, make some sense, and we can discuss this like adults. If you want to come here to scream profanity at me and ramble on about things that I never did or which are irrelevant, then what is your point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Respect, lol...you're pointedly ignoring my /specific/ criticism of your use of Twinkle, the 'widely agreed to' opinion that using 'anti-vandalism' tools to revert good faith edits is HIGHLY offensive (as it basically calls the other person a vandal), etc. When people 'pick and choose' what they want to respond to, and ignore criticisms of their behavior, it tends to irritate me, especially when I was pointing out that using Twinkle in that manner is EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN THE TWINKLE DOCS as 'abuse of an anti-vandalism tool.' The 'temperature' of my comments didn't go up until you made it clear you were going to ignore that, and about half of the rest of what I said. Also, changing the conversation from my 'use of fuck for emphasis' to (silly) personal attacks (calling me a 'fussy crank') isn't exactly helpful, and makes your 'complaint' pretty much a joke.
The point of mentioning the 'listasbot' was more the tone of the discussion, actually, and pointing out the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad. You can (trivially) find many other discussions about 'incomplete redirects' where the same consensus was expressed (RFCs, etc)....that 'null content' talk pages for redirects are candidates for G8 speedy, but that 'completing the redirect' is 'cheaper' on the database.
This has been the case for YEARS.
There are literally /thousands/ of examples in your edit history of you creating 'empty' talk pages for 'non-article' pages. I'm not going to make a list unless this becomes a matter of 'providing evidence'.
FYI, 'listasbot' was deactivated for 'technical reasons', not because of removal of it's approval. If the /admin/ who owns it turned it back on tomorrow, it would still be a 'approved bot', and it's EXPLICIT PURPOSE was to complete the type of 'incomplete redirects' that you are creating, by making the exact same type of edits as what you reverted.
The 'redirect class' is not pointless FOR THOSE WIKIPROJECTS THAT TRACK THEIR REDIRECTS, which is very few of them. It's trivial to glance at the documentation for the banner or the 'assessment page' for the project and see what parameters are actually supported. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that your 'automated' edits are correct, not mine to dig through the documentation for you.
Your example of Talk:Kim Jong Il specifically....per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale the 'redirect' class is not supported by the Biography wikiproject (it's use in that banner is 'broken'), and that /particular/ edit added that talk page to the 'Biography articles without listas parameter' error tracking category (a subset of 'Wikipedia backlog', 'Biography articles needing attention', AND 'Wikipedia template parameter issues'). Maybe you'd like to retry with an example that /didn't/ break things?
Your habitual use of AWB to do so is disruptive behavior, as you are making 'automatic' mistakes (in the thousands) that someone else will have to fix.
Instead of making 'blanket statements' that "I don't understand" actually debating the point would, you know maybe actually accomplish something. The talk page policy says to not create talk pages just to hold header templates....my assumption (since you haven't actually tried to make an argument) is that you're trying to 'wikilawyer' that 'banner templates' aren't specifically mentioned, which is WP:POINTy behavior.
Given that 'your' chosen example of a 'good' edit /specifically/ added that page to a backlogged maintenance category, it would be a waste of time to dig for more examples. You're honestly not giving the impression that you have any intent of listening, and your history reinforces that. Revent (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Still? I don't see how your tone was respectful previously but that's neither here nor there: I'll just take it for granted that you were and move on. I also can't sympathize with being "highly offended" by someone using Twinkle to revert me versus manually reverting, but okay--you were highly offended by that. I'll take it for granted that you don't want to be reverted using semi-automatic tools, although they are not exclusively intended for fighting vandalism, nor did I ever claim that you were being a vandal.
"the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad." ???
If you're granting that class=Redirect is useful for projects that support it then why are you complaining about totally irrelevant banners that I didn't add (e.g. {{WPBIO}})? Most of the redirects I have ever tagged are for {{album}}, which does support it. In the case of (e.g.) {{WPALT}} it is simply tagged as NA class which is not a problem. As far as I am aware it is only with a handful of banners (e.g. {{WPKOREA}} and {{WPFILM}}) that class=Redirect generates some kind of problem tracking category and out of the tens of thousands of redirect tags that I've made, less than 1/10% are the problematic ones. So what is your point? If you do something right 99.99% of the time, it is reasonable for someone to harangue you over the >0.01% where you don't?
Evidently, you did not understand my point in tagging Talk:Kim Jong Il: If it is tagged {{WPBIO|class=redirect}}, then it is not added to any tracking category nor is any extra work made for anyone for being tagged as a redirect. So again, I do not understand why you are complaining nor why you ever brought up the biography project: I have never tagged for it and if I did, then your gripe about tracking categories would still be irrelevant...
"Your habitual use of AWB to do [something] is disruptive behavior, as you are making 'automatic' mistakes (in the thousands) that someone else will have to fix." When? Where? What are you talking about?
"The talk page policy says to not create talk pages just to hold header templates" Exactly my point. You then want to cast me as WIKILAWYERING and POINTING and whatever else when you came to complain to me about something that you didn't understand in the first place... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
(refer to the VP convo, where I pointed out the specific categories that you added that page to)
It is entirely possible that I am lumping you into the same class as other editors who create 'similar' issues, and if so, I apologize. To be honest, given the 'massive' number of your edits, and the difficulty of actually 'finding' these by the method I use, figuring out 'who' is doing this exactly 'how much' is basically impossible. That's why I tried to 'diffuse' this into a less specific, and less 'heated', conversation on the pump. It's not that this is 'wrong' in specific, 'chosen' cases, such as when a wikiproject tracks redirects, it's that doing it 'automatically' creates issues that other editors end up having to manually fix.
My use of links to your edit history wasn't meant to 'single you out', it was just the only real way I knew of to point out the exact issue of 'talk pages being created semi-automatically just to hold wikiproject banners'. That would be why I didn't initially use your name. Revent (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated, 'style' point.
Please don't create tens of thousands of 'redirected' transclusions from template space. (See here) They are for convenience when editing manually, and it causes extra load on the server.
The only 'evidence' would be having the exact same point made to me, with the statement that it 'slows down page display', by a 'technically adept' admin....I'd have to dig for exactly when it was. He was also referring to using 'aliases' for the banner fields (like importance instead of priority, or 'short versions' of the field names. A 'specific' example is that if you use 'y' instead of 'yes', the server has to translate it into the 'standard' version every time the template is displayed.
It's something that wouldn't really matter in 'individual' cases, but would when done on a large scale....for instance, 'what links here' on {{WikiProject Biography}} will have to track backward through the thousands of extra transclusions.
The point has also been made various places that the lack of 'uniformity' in banner template usage causes difficulties for bots...again, I don't have 'specific' pointers without tedious searching, it's just a 'comment' that I have seen repeatedly made.
Please don't think that I'm specifically trying to harass you...I'm not. Other than your use of Twinkle to revert me (and I understand /why/ giving the number of edits you do, it's just 'rude') I don't really have a /problem/ with what you do....it's more that I think that the 'scale' of it emphasizes flaws in the way that policies are actually written. I do a lot of 'cleanup' type work, and the 'semi-automatic' processing makes things more difficult...specifically, banners on 'redirects' do not track the 'assessment' status of the actual article, and have to be manually fixed to remove the redirect from the 'wrong' category. When you're talking about a category like 'unassessed bios', that /already/ has hundrededs of thousands of articles, having 'misspelling redirects' added is distanctly unhelpful. Revent (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Knapp, I apologize for not introducing myself, before, but I really had no reason to, as you make fantastic edits and are a great role model for all of us, while I'm really but a peon. Recently, however, I did stumble across this link and, having heard of your occassional unemployment (I'm unemployed right now, and I don't intend to imply that you need money) along with your substantial expertise in leading extremely successful Wikipedia Education Program projects, I thought that you might be interested. I certainly was, myself, and I think that the foundation would be very fortunate to have you on board as the Director of that program. Do you have any interest? I do, unfortunately, have to specifically ask that you shoot me a TW TB msg when you reply to my user page, as I'm terrible at monitoring pages. Anyhow, let me know what you think, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you I can't speak for how fantastic my edits are (certainly some users would disagree and some of my edits are decidedly not fantastic), but I'm flattered by the opportunity. I would definitely be interested although I'd be surprised if I'm the best man for the job. What do you recommend I do next? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯13:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Well, I think there's great benefit in any type of edit that makes the encyclopedia better. Anyhow, that next step is decidedly easy: apply here. I'm assuming that you have a LinkedIn profile, which makes it a bit easier, just throw together a really nice cover letter, upload a resume, and there you go. I might chat with Sage Ross, too. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Citation style I agree that citations should be put into templates (that way, their formatting can be uniform, users can choose exactly how they're displayed with preferences, and machines can read them), but there is no consensus that they must be used and editing back and forth on citation style is discouraged. If there is already an established citation style on a page you should leave it as-is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm, confused, so when it comes to taxoboxes there is a consensus (which I depsise), but when it comes to citation style, its up to you???--Mishae (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Consensus This is similar to (e.g.) WP:ENGVAR: there are several national varities of English and there are several citation styles. When Wikipedia was first being built, no one chose any one variety of English to enforce upon everyone nor any one citation style. Entire articles had been written using various types and anyone attempting to go through these articles changing "favour" to "favor" was not adding to the encyclopedia, but simply rearranging its content based on his personal preferences. If there is an established style on a certain page then it should stay until such time as when one citation style is determined for the entire site. See Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_style. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the sooner we start using one citation for the entire site the sooner people will get the point which one is better. Sure, Wikipedia have lots of varieties on English but they fall under one category: They are all part of English Wikipedia. Sure, for that we will need to eliminate users like Rkitko that will try to continue on their pointless quest to ensure various citations (don't think the term elimination is used here as a threat, just a term instead of block from editing or similar Wikipedia term). Another great idea, in Belarus they have 2 different Wikipedias, we can create 3 different Wikipedias too (Australian, British, and American one), that way everyone will be happy. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
So apparently our little conflict is to be continued, yesterday I edited Alopecurus pratensis and by adding conversions decided to remove {{italic title}} which in my opinion is pointless (considering that not all articles have it). User Rkitko partialy reverted my edit by puting it back and wrote in the article history "please do not remove it!". I reverted his edit, saying that his edit was pointless and so that he wont yell at me. If he will continue on his stupid {{italic title}} quest shall I go to A/NI?--Mishae (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Italics Per Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_face, this should be italicized. I know that it might seem confusing or difficult to edit here—it seems like you keep on ending up being frustrated by conflicts—but once you see how certain style issues work, I'm sure that you'll find a way to comfortably navigate the rules that we have (which are, admittedly, pretty scattershot and complicated sometimes.) Let me know how else I can help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If I may interject, I have tried to explain the way {{italic title}} works on taxon articles but he has not yet showed and understanding of the concept. Plainly, and again, if the article is titled at the taxon name and that taxon is titled at something like the genus or species name and|name= in the taxobox is used, the article title will not be automatically italicized from the taxobox code. This is addressed at WP:TX#Italic page titles, which I have directed Mishae to before. Removing {{italic title}} on articles titled at their scientific name (when at the level of genus and below) where |name= is used in the taxobox results in an undesirable style, which is why I performed a partial revert of Mishae's edit. Rkitko(talk)16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me civily explain my reason for it removal: From my point of view, italic title is pointless because it doesn't italicize anything, since the italics are used in binomial name. Now, I did proposed the idea of removing |name= and italic title, because every editor and reader can see perfectly without it, not to mention not all articles use them, which means there is no consensus on it. Unfortunatelly user Rkitko thinks that because he is an admin he can do what ever hell he wants. And yes, the rules are infact confusing, and not only for newbies. :) Now, I would like to thank Justin for understanding, which user Rkitko (from my point of view) lacks off, by just tossing a "rule book"...--Mishae (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Mishae, apologies for the delay in a response, but I was trying to figure out the best way to word my reply. Let me begin by saying that what you wrote, Mishae, was not a civil explanation. You strayed far from an assumption of good faith, suggesting things about my motivations are conduct that are patently false. I have spent nearly a year patiently trying to explain consensus and common editing practices on taxoboxes, categories, navboxes, and {{italic title}}. After each discussion with me and with others who urged you to follow consensus, you ignored all good advice offered to you and continued to edit against consensus. For this you were blocked twice for disruptive edits to prevent further edits against consensus and, essentially, for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your refusal to understand consensus has been frustrating, though I've been happy to see your recent edits on taxoboxes have not included condensation of parameters onto a single line. Thank you for that; I'm glad we could finally come to an understanding.
That said, I'd like to respond to each of your points and hopefully help clear up your confusion on {{italic title}}, even though I have explained this many times before. Again, some articles on taxa use a vernacular name in the |name= parameter. There is no consensus on whether this parameter should reflect the article title. You're correct that if |name= is the same as |binomial= for a species article or if |name= is the same as |genus= for a genus article, then the removal of |name= will automatically italicize the taxobox's title and the article title if and only if the article title matches either |binomial= or |genus=. In this way, an article moved from a scientific name title to a vernacular name will no automatically longer italicize the title the moment it is moved. But as I've said before, sinking control of page title italicization to the taxobox template is confusing for new editors to figure out how the article title is being italicized. It's opaque template design, so it's often preferred to leave |name= with either a vernacular name or the scientific name and use {{italic title}} together so that it's very clear how to italicize and de-italicize an article title to every editor. But to be clear, the edit we're discussing here that I partially reverted, the |name= was in use and you removed {{italic title}}. By doing so, the article title was no longer displayed in italics. This is not desirable, so I partially reverted your edit. If you had removed both{{italic title}} and |name=, then the article title would have remained italicized, but this makes it harder for newer editors to figure it all out. Regardless, there appears to be no consensus on which approach to take so if {{italic title}} is present and the article title is italicized properly, there's no reason to remove it. If you would like to build consensus on the best approach so that we can have a discussion on the pros and cons of each, the best place to do that would be at Template talk:Taxobox.
Finally, I fully recognize that being an admin is WP:NOBIGDEAL and that the tools I have are to be used carefully but grant me no special privilege. I do not think that "because he is an admin he can do what ever hell he wants." I am just an editor like you. I'm sorry that you have this impression of me; I can only imagine that it is the result of our discussions on your talk page over the last year on your edits that I found troubling and my block of you after an AN/I discussion in which you were explicitly told to no longer edit against consensus with regard to taxobox line spacing and whitespace. You clearly have chosen to think of me as a bully - something that I aggressively disagree with and something that is not supported by any of our discussions. In each I have provided information, pleaded, cajoled, and implored you to follow consensus. I made you aware of the consequences; I never made threats. To remind you, this was our first interaction (you chose to respond elsewhere) and then this was our second conversation. While the discussions (as were subsequent discussions), nothing about it was particularly confrontational. I presented you with information, asked you to change your editing behavior to adopt the norms, another editor weighed in on taxobox line spacing and agreed with me, yet it wasn't until half a year later that you were finally blocked to prevent further disruptive edits like that. I'm glad we're past that, but I do not see any way you could possibly characterize our interactions as contentious, harassing, or bullying. Your characterization of me here was harsh and not based on any truth. As I've said before, not much bothers me but a misrepresentation of my character to others is not appreciated. I'd hope that you'd take some time to browse through our early discussions and reassess your feelings toward me. Note that it was your behavior and disruptive edits alone that got you blocked, not me. Regardless, bringing my name up in unrelated discussions just to drag my name through the mud isn't very civil or polite. An apology would be nice but not expected or requested - only on your own accord if that's truly how you feel. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)05:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that was just my feeling, I didn't look into truth that much, because everyone have their own difinition on it. As far as adminship goes, O.K, lets say that on Russian Wikipedia every admin get a special privelege. Again, you might say that I assume bad faith or that I am not being truthful, but even user Psychiatrick will agree with me here. You can point out any rule you want but that wont help. How about you will point me out on some adsmins that were blocked by ArbCom?--Mishae (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So I go more and more into a hot water with every admin here... Look here Under Wikipedia rules and guidelines I am allowed to edit my own comment... But this admin reverted my edit without looking into its history, after which I left him a friendly note here. I personally getting madder and madder here, its like I can't edit, I can't talk, and can't be trusted.--Mishae (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It's so much better to separate genre subcategories by type (EPs, live, soundtracks) from subgenres. I'm trying to standardize this but I can't if you always revert it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Subcategories I agree that there should be some method to this: there are subcategories for artist nationality, album type, and subgenre. The former should certainly be sorted with a space since it's a diffusing category, but I'm not sure about the other two. Maybe "+" for album types (EP, compilation, live, remix, soundtrack), and "*" for genres? I think there should be some discussion in a centralized place and a systematic method to applying it (which you know that I will do) but I don't want piecemeal solutions in the meantime. Do you want to discuss it at WT:ALBUM? Do you like the proposed alternative? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with that. I don't think a discussion at the WikiProject is even necessary. Implement away. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing personal I appreciate you adorning my page with it, I'm just a little particular about how exactly my userpage is laid out (and I've been meaning to change that for years...) Thanks so much and please don't feel slighted. I'm glad to have been here as long as I have and done as much as I have. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't feel slighted, it's just as I said, I've never come across anybody who turned down one of these, that's all. I can understand about the user page, as everyone kinda treats that as their little corner of the Wiki world. Tell you what, I'll give you the award here on your talk page, and you can do with it as you wish be it here or your talk page or however you want to go about it. (Talk) Vjmlhds01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, apparently I am in another hot water, now this user, AndyTheGrump wants to block me for trolling and personal attacks! All I wanted to do is to talk with Jimbo about an issue, and now it turns out that I am trolling because a founder wont even reply! I don't understand why people hate me here, as a productive editor I should be welcome! This sounds a lot like WikiNazism of sorts...--Mishae (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In fairness, Mishae, you were called a troll because you called Jimbo a "lousy cash cow". Telling you to stop that isn't WikiNazism, it's common courtesy. AndyTheGrump doesn't want to block you (and isn't an admin so he couldn't even if he wanted to), he wants you to stop calling people names and stirring up trouble, and if a block is the only way to get you to stop, then so be it. To be honest, I think you would be well-advised to just stay away from the more "meta" areas of Wikipedia. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have called him that if he would have not ignored my previous post, a diff of which I provided bellow of my second message... As far as common courtesy, hmm, maybe telling me about blocks everytime is annoying. Plus, the more users Wikipedia blocks the more people will hate this project. And its a fact. I understand that Wikipedia isn't for everyone, but its the admins and the ArbCom that make it that way. You see, I too came to Wikipedia with a feeling "great, I will write some articles and chat with nice people" whether they are admins or not. But it turns out that people love to block good, hard working editors, making room for some scum that ignores everything possitive and focuses only on how to block someone and find the reason to do so. Whats worse is that people are looking for personal attacks in every letter even if its not related to them. So, AndyTheGrump probably was afraid that someone will upset Jimbo here? Let me tell you (and him) as well, that I don't care if I insulted him or not, what I care is wheather or not he will reply to the message. Since he is a founder he should read the issue not just ignore it. See, it sounds like, he can ignore it because he is the boss, and I can't ignore every user??? Something is not right here!--Mishae (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I called Jimbo a "lousy cash cow", not AndyTheGrump. He should be advised that if its not related to him he shouldn't call anyone a troll!--Mishae (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
O' yeah, all of it is above this discussion, take a look please. For example look here. Ryan Vesey used to say that: even though that I do make pointless (in their opinion) edits, reverting them is as pointless...--Mishae (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly That's a perfect example of a pleasant interaction with other users. For better or worse, contentious edits (e.g. name-calling) will follow you around and make a bad impression. This is nothing particular to Wikipedia: it happens everywhere. Focus on being positive and constructive and you can add a lot to this project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
That rollback was almost certainly an accidental misclick; those happen all the time, especially when people browse Wikipedia with touchscreens. The rollback tool leaves rollback links all over the watchlist, and without any kind of confirmation prompt, it's not uncommon for people to not even realize that they've made the misclick. Writ Keeper⚇♔03:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks And I thought that people gather here only to praise Jimbo and his crew of admins... I'm glad that I have some friends here, make me not wanna leave a project for a time being...
As far as Writ Keeper comment goes, should the user be advised on not using his priveledge while having a touchscreen. Because honestly, it might make not only me mad... The thing is is that I got a notification about it.--Mishae (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not really it, they probably didn't mean to use rollback at all. They probably meant to click on a link on their watchlist that happened to be right next to the rollback button, and the touchscreen misinterpreted it as a click on the rollback button itself. The notification is just part and parcel to it. Unfortunately, there's not really any easy way to turn off rollback just for touchscreens. It does make people mad on occasion, but there's not really anything we can do about it; all we can do is just explain the situation as it comes up. :/ Writ Keeper⚇♔03:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what happened as I noted when I undid my own edit. I think there's a gadget to disable the rollback links from the watchlist; if so, I should enable that. Sorry for the accidental drama. Best regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Its fine. Glad that you got me at a time when I am in good mood (my mood changes in seconds, just to let all of you know). By the way, I haven't seen your second revert since the notification didn't notify me... Another thing, maybe I should have those rollback rights, I don't use a tochscreen? Any ideas?--Mishae (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To prevent the rollback button from appearing on your watchlist add:
Congratulations Justin ! I'm not a native English speaker, could check what I added on this page and tell me if it's fine for you ? You could leave your comment here, I'm not sure you can edit WP:MMORPG yourself. Regards Lpele (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is a joke saying that Wikipedia is a game and wikipedia users are players, "Game mechanics" section says "Players can accumulate EXP (experience points)" so you won the game on 19 april 2012 ! RegardsLpele (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if it suppose to be a first-person shooter with an M rating? Calling vandals criminals reminds me that Wikipedia is a Grand Theft Auto, a game which I don't play!--Mishae (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2009 Among 2012s
In the section "A chronology" on your userpage, there is a 2009 (specifically regarding "Mr. Know-It-All") event listed in your 2012s. I am not sure if this is intentional, but I thought I would make you aware of it in the case that it was not.Cokedragon (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have recently posted a question at the Led Zeppelin IV talk page that was partly directed at you, so I thought it may be better if I asked you directly. Why have you insisted that the album be referred to as "untitled" in the Led Zeppelin template and yet it seems you never challenged the use of the name "Led Zeppelin IV" anywhere else on WP? Just curious. You may reply at the the linked talk page if you think that's best. Thank you for your time. RacerX11Talk to meStalk me17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi - can you take a look and or keep an eye on Science of Life Studies 24/7? The original article made no mention of the Baha'i Faith and now a couple of new editors are adding a section that seems unbalanced and may be a spill over of an argument that might be occurring on youtube. At the very least postings in youtube can't seem to be used as a reliable source for something and the edits in general seem geared just to question the validity of the efforts of the school without reliable sources. I deleted the youtube reference twice and it is out at this writing but I suspect it will return. I'd appreciate your thoughts/assistance. --Smkolins (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
AFL-NFL merger renaming
Hey I noticed that a few months ago, you moved the article AFL–NFL merger to American Football League–National Football League merger. Not sure what prompted that, but I tagged the article to be moved back to its old title, which is more consistent with other merger articles like NHL–WHA merger and the ABA–NBA merger. Furthermore, there was no discussion to move the page to begin with. You are more than welcome to express a counterpoint as to why we should keep the article at the new title that you left it at right here. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Recipient of Wikipedia Award
Founding fathers & SONS.
I haven't seen any of your work but that doesn't mean that your hard work won't be acknowledged by me therefore this award for your tireless service.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Burton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. --Edcolins (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Can you tell me if this edit was motivated by personal preference or MOS? I don't want this to sound like I'm challenging you, so let me explain why I'm asking. I have adopted the convention of year followed by em dash followed by awards in dozens of articles. While I know some of the ins and outs of ens and ems, I am far form an expert, and I chose it because I thought it looked attractive, rather than adherence to some rules. However, if it is wrong, I've used it many places, so have a lot of cleanup to do. before I start that, I want to make sure which is the preferred structure.--SPhilbrick(Talk)12:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you have removed many of the Cultural References and 40th anniversary remastering sections of many of the Star Trek (TOS) articles. I can agree with removing the remastering info since it's mostly trivia, but what is the rationale behind removing the cultural references? — Loadmaster (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Trivia This is based on my understanding of WP:TRIVIA and WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. (Note also that almost all of these are unsourced—I have left a couple of sourced references but mostly pruned the original research.) What do you think? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My take on the rules is, as they state, that "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the subject". Only if the subject is prominent in the other work is it notable. So just dropping a name or two doesn't meet muster. They should also, as you point out, be verifiable. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
FFD nominations
You've copied and pasted the exact same rationale into numerous nominations of TV episode images you've started today. These nominations are generic, in that they just restate boilerplate language without actually discussing anything specific to the image or the article's subject, or the information the image does or doesn't provide, or why the NFUR claims the image was used. I might ultimately agree on the fate of some of these screenshots, but your nomination tells me nothing about your reasons or process and so does nothing to rebut any claims the existing NFUR might make. Please add some specific substance to each of these nominations (for example, like you did with the Plato's Stepchildren file). Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Generic rationales The rationales are generic because the screenshots are mostly generic. (E.g. there are no less than four that I've seen today which are Captain Kirk about to kiss a woman.) These should never have been uploaded and the onus is on the uploader to prove that these fair use rationales are legit: the assumption is that non-free media can't and 99% of them aren't fair-use. There are thousands of such images and they all need to be culled so nominating 70 at a time is actually a drop in the bucket. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Doing it in a rush is bad form and just pisses people off. I wouldn't have that complaint if you had even gone so far as to say "generic screenshot of Kirk kissing a woman" where that was applicable, but to just restate the same language is a failure on your part for which there is no excuse. And this is not because I'm predisposed to keep all of these; see my !vote here. Haste makes waste; in this instance, it makes your nominations just seem indiscriminate and without thought. These are your nominations. So please put some effort into them to justify anyone spending time discussing them. postdlf (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Rushing What is evidently a rush to you is actually carefully considered. Right now, I have open 50 tabs and am reviewing all of them individually to see how I want to proceed with those articles. I'll grant that I can make mistakes (no doubt) but the fact that they are nominating in a relatively swift row does not mean that I lacked due diligence. Several of these images could have some fair use rationale (e.g. pictures of alien creatures) if sources are present discussing the design and production of the episode. Since almost all of them are lacking even the most basic citations or discussion of anything other than the plot, it's impossible for there to be a fair use rationale: it's just window-dressing. Again, the only way to work through this and not fall behind a sea of bad uploads is to do a few dozen in one fell swoop. If one gets deleted that shouldn't have been, we have a review process that will catch the 1%. Consequently, I feel confident in these batch nominations that I've made and I have a "success rate" in the high 90s, leading me to believe that other users are on the same page about how trivial these media are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any careful consideration in the nominations because they are all the same; I can't read your mind, only your comments. And I find your claim about the screenshots potentially being valid in the articles if and when sourced commentary is added, to be 1) not supported by NFCC#8 and 2) a lot of time wasting, just an exercise in supposed rule compliance rather than an improvement of the article. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Consideration They are not all strictly identical (e.g. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_31#File:TalTelfer.jpg) but I have to tread the same ground every time because several users are willfully ignorant of NFCC and show up just to vote "I like this image, let's keep it". To cut that off at the pass, I feel obliged to give an explanation of what NFCC are and how they've operated in several hundred such deletion discussions previously. I don't see how writing "This is just a picture of Kirk holding a woman, invalid FUR" is a better deletion rationale: anyone can look at these images and see that it's just a pedestrian screenshot of someone looking at an object or two actors shaking hands. I don't understand your two complaints at the end of your comment. What do you want me to do differently? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I want you to actually rebut the NFUR by responding to it (even if it's to note that it makes a generic claim), and I want you to actually discuss the image's content and how it relates to the article's subject. And if you think whatever problems are present in the NFUR or the article's support of the image could be fixed through further editing, then don't nominate it for deletion, because that's not fixing. Take note of what I've written in my deletion !votes in your nominations; not that you need to slavishly copy me, but your comments need to show some thought specific to the image rather than just repetition. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And in at least one instance, there was sourced commentary in the article on the aliens' appearance depicted in the image, yet you still used a boilerplate rationale that didn't mention or address that at all. As my middle school math teacher always said, "show your work." postdlf (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again...
...you're flooding my talk page and email with your stupid image deletion alerts! I get one EVERY TIME you pick an image to delete for whatever reason, and this even after someone else told you what to do to avoid it! Apparently you still don't get it. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, well I DON'T CARE! I uploaded those images a long time ago and now idiots like you crawl out of the woodwork and start deleting things YEARS LATER because all of a sudden it "violates copy rights" or "fair use" or "it's not encyclopedic" - I heard it all already - I used to protest it, but it was a futile effort and I moved on, but I guess I still have to bothered with it - screw that bullshit. So again, I don't care what you do with the images but now you're on official notice: STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE! Find a way to delete the it W/O informing me, or GTFO Wikipedia. Next time I take it to the admins. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop You don't have to cyber-shout obscenities at me. What I suggest is that you go through your uploads and see if they meet the non-free criteria (which are substantially the same as they were six years ago). That way, you can be saved the trouble of being informed via Twinkle if I or anyone else sees fit to nominate the images for deletion and you can do everyone else the favor of having non-fair use media deleted: it's a task for everyone here at the encyclopedia. I'm posting another message on your talk simply to point out this response as I'm not sure if you watch my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Really? Since I wasted my time all those years ago uploading the images, it's your solution now, to waste my time again going through all those images and fixing what in your eyes doesn't meet fair use? I'm sorry but that's not how it works. I had already gone through the motions of filling out the stupid templates and trying to justify that they met guidelines back when I posted them, but still, the all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent picture-gestapo - (for which you're apparently part of) always find ways that they don't make the cut. Therefore, I'm not wasting further time on this BS to satisfy what you think is your civic duty to police Wikipedia and nit pick stupid crap. It might be hard for someone like you to understand but I have better things to do. So, like I said, go delete my images all you want, but really the only solution to the problem is to "PLEASE STOP" bothering me about it. If you're unable to I suggest you find a new way to spend your time unless of course you want to keep prying open this can of worms. Peace and zen symbols dude. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Amen Cyberia23. I've given up on Wikipedia because of crap like this. It also makes me regret all the photos that I personally took and uploaded for use on Wikipedia. They can cry all they want for donations or help but I've pretty much moved on from this site. Shinerunner(talk)13:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploads It's not my fault that you have failed to understand NFCC. Uploads such as this which clearly belong at Commons or this which should never have been uploaded as non-free media are poor uses of your time but what are other users supposed to do? Just accept it and move on since it required effort on your part? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I've placed speedy deletion tags on all my TV show images - I'm not bothering to fix the fair use tags since no matter what they say it isn't good enough, so I just want them gone off Wikipedia ASAP. Although I already had one user go around and try and revert my changes until I explained to him what is going on. They responded that they'll be adding their own images then, for which I LOLed - I'm sure Koavf here would love another victim. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks? What is even the point of this post? I ignored your last one so that you could get the petty last word and piss and moan here like a petulant child but then you saw fit to post another juvenile and asinine message here. Why? What do you want from me? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Victimization That doesn't answer my question: how did you expect me to respond to these posts? What do you want to come from this?
Here's another way that you can think about this: instead of assigning blame or victimhood to someone, you could act mature and discuss the merits of the discussion. I've had content deleted here—everyone who's been here for any amount of time has. You deal with it. We can act like mature adults and move onwards and upwards or you can continue being petty. Which one is it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You still don't get it, I'll try to explain it again: This has nothing to do with me being upset that you put my images up for deletion - it's got everything to do with being continuously hounded with the BS that goes along with it. That specifically being the flooding of my talk page and subsequent email with dozens of alerts notices. You've done that twice to me and obviously don't care, so it should be no surprise to you that it doubly pissed me off the second time around. The "for the record" comment was to inform you that I have voluntarily orphaned my images so that they're auto-deleted and I'm not bothered by the likes of you and any other image deleter again. Probably wishful thinking though. There are a couple of maverick users who want me to reconsider - I said they can reupload the images if they want, I just don't want my name to be attached to them and they can then deal with the image deletion BS. I'm done! And in answer to your question about how to proceed with this - I consider the matter closed and we have nothing further to discuss. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
On not getting it You don't want the notices, fine. I use WP:TWINKLE, which automates the process of notification. I don't see who uploaded it and for the purposes of NFCC, that is of course, irrelevant. Now, do you understand what my beef with you is? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I can't say I have sympathy for you - you take it upon yourself to do what you do. Expect others' buttons to be pressed in the process. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no I don't know why I bother having discussions when the other conversant(s) won't answer yes or no questions except to be rude. If you have anything to post to my talk, please make sure that it's both germane and at least civil. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Cyberia23 has a point given that at least some of his images you just nominated for deletion were uploaded as long ago as 2004. NFC rules and practices have changed significantly and multiple times since then, and it's not only unrealistic to expect an editor (if they are still active) to keep going back to review edits from nine years ago to see if they remain compliant, but also to expect that editor to still be interested. It's also not good practice to flood someone's talk page with multiple notices; you nominated nearly 50 of his uploads split over two days, and made a separate notice for each one on his talk page instead of combining them. That you are using an automated tool doesn't entitle you to ignore the consequences of that tool when the number or kind of your automated edits creates a problem (as Betacommand learned, for example). So please take more care in the future. Mass nominations are problematic for many reasons, including the ones we've already discussed regarding boilerplate, identical rationales, and when the uploads are of a certain vintage it is not only unhelpful to only notify the uploader but can be a nuisance to that uploader as well. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? The argument that they might be pestered by it doesn't ring true to me: I'd rather err on the side of telling you that I'm going to delete your image than not as it seems far more likely that someone would be pestered by not being told than by being told. Also, the equivalent of NFCC in 2004 included "[the photo's] inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public" and it's clear that even then, many if not all of these images would fail. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet here he is, expressing that you were pestering him, so we don't need to even treat this as theoretical. I felt the same way a few years ago when the NFURs were first implemented (images used to just have the generic non-free type licensing templates, like "book cover" or "screenshot"), and every day I'd get flooded with notices for images I had uploaded years earlier, in a spate of trying to be helpful, for articles I had no interest and no other involvement in. Now read my comment again, take some time to think about it, and then respond in full. postdlf (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Fleetwood mac
I have reverted your edits on Fleetwood Mac. The gallery will stay where it is. If you think otherwise, please give me a good explanation. I do not want this to turn into an edit war. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the objection that was filed at WP:RM/TR, please consider if you want to withdraw this request, or open a formal move discussion at Talk:Miracle Park (community). It seems unlikely that an admin would be willing to do this as an uncontroversial move. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
File:African Union member states by corruption index.png listed for deletion
May I request your permission to upload another image of this screencap which depicts Nomad, the Changeling, who has the power to destroy entire worlds? Please compare The Changeling to the A-bomb which destroyed an entire city. Wikipedia has images of the A-bomb because it was made by the US government and so images of it is in the public domain. The Changeling is hard to describe in text--a mixed partial square, cylindrical object with an antenna--if you see the image? This wouldn't do well. (as Admin postdlf says) The title of the episode deals directly with Nomad, the Changeling, which can destroy the Enterprise at will and has already wiped out the Malur star system. (if you read the somewhat long wikipedia article where it is used) So, it might be an appropriate image here after all. Its your call. Just give a brief reply on your talkpage here.
I have to ask since Cyberia was the uploader of the image that you filed a deletion request on and I saw his angry response to you today. I find its common courtesy to get a notification if an image I uploaded is under a deletion request but I guess Cyberia is different. Anyway, please consider my reasons on making a request for uploading a newer Changeling image. Kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I do not think this image meets the NFCC since the article does not have any sourced discussion of the design of this robot. No sources means no fair use. If you can find sources discussing how this thing was made (and I've no doubt they exist), then add those citations and you can justify the image. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh! I see what you mean. I don't know if I can provide that now but perhaps in future then. Thanks for the tip again. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
An image on Patterns of Force
Dear Justin,
I reluctantly decided to reupload an image for the Star Trek episode Patterns of Force here since Cyberia's image was kept...due to the broadcast history of this episode. West Germany Refused to allow this particular episode to be broadcast in the 1960's due to the impact of the Nazi dresses apparently. So, the dresses are important actually. I decided to do this upload since someone reverted Cyberia's edit on his previous image file. At least his original image will be orphaned now--and he won't blame you or anyone else.
There is a source from Bild here so this information is verifiable. Part of the text says:
"Patterns of Force "(original title:" Patterns of Force") was produced in 1968, but because of the parallels to Nazism in Germany it was not broadcast on free television. A dubbed version has been around since the video release in 1995....[It continues on]" (google translate from German)
National Socialism (Nazism) originated from Germany so naturally its important to broadcast history that this particular episode was considered verboten/prohibited in Germany for so many years...despite its overall anti-Nazi message. Strange, when I was in University in Vancouver in the mid-1990s, my Univ Prof urged our history class to watch 'Triumph of the Will' by Leni Riefenstahl to see how magnificiently it was made but I never had the time but now after watching a 10 minute clip of it on youtube, I'm sickened by the screaming propaganda there and switch the channel. Yes the camera angles used make Hitler look larger than life but still he's a man full of hate. Don't know how this episode ever made into the original Star Trek but I understand its anti-war and anti-racism message. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cameroon international footballers 2011-12 Season}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Final Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Koavf. Regarding your moving the Androphilia and gynephilia article to Ambiphilia, androphilia, and gynephilia, that should not have been done. The article hardly discusses ambiphilia because the term is far less used than the other two terms by researchers (or by others) to describe sexuality; some editor added it to that article when it is barely anything but an obscure term for bisexuality/pansexuality. As stated on that article's talk page in the Rename section, the terms ambiphilia and ambiphilic are more commonly used in chemistry; Google searches, such as this Google Books search, confirm that. Therefore, since for some reason I cannot move the article back to Androphilia and gynephilia without administrative assistance, I will go to WP:Requested moves about this if you would rather not pursue moving the article back. Once it is moved back, I will remove the term ambiphilia from the lead, per WP:LEAD, and the section on it because it is an empty section with the exception of the one-line note about bisexuality. Did you check that article's talk page first to see that such a move would likely be contested?
And while I don't mind this deletion you made at the Pansexuality article, and agreement about removing that section was noted at at my talk page earlier this year, I ask that you keep in mind that In the media and In popular culture type of sections are allowed, provided that they look like what is done for the WP:FAHomer Simpson article or WP:FA Brad Pitt article with regard to such sections; see the WP:Popular culture essay.
I'll currently be watching your talk page for replies about all of this, so there is no need to reply on my talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Your welcome! I'm actually pretty hungry now and can use some pie myself. Also, thanks for reviewing my user page! It's pretty cool being reviewed by the most active editor on Wikipedia. I just removed the reference as I didn't really need it. Anyway you know how much the community appreciates your 1,316,027+ edits to the encyclopedia, and with those numbers I can't imagine how many edit wars you've been in! I'll see you around. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
List of exclamations by Robin
Please stop blanking the content on this page. Not only are you edit warring, and you're one revert away from WP:3RR, which could lead to block, but you're blanking content on an article that is currently at WP:AFD. Let the discussion run it's course and give your opinion if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Jauersockdude?/dude.13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Because you don't blank an article that's under discussion at AFD, especially when consensus at that AFD seems clearly against deletion, at least at the moment. If you have a cogent argument to make about the merits of the content, make it at the AFD. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
What Ultraexactzz said. That's what an AFD is for. Once it's up at AFD, let others decide the fate of the content. There's no need to blank the article while the AFD is progress. What's the point of the AFD then if you're already deleting most of the article on your own? Jauersockdude?/dude.15:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I saw that you had completed over a million edits and I just wondered how you did it! I see you joined Wikipedia 8 years so that gives you a big head's start. ;- ) But how many hours a week do you think you spend editing? I feel like I'm always on but I do a lot of reading, not editing. It's very impressive! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk01:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit count Two things that help a lot are AWB and HotCat, which are semi-automated tools. My editing level is contingent upon how much work I have and my mood: I have spent years unemployed so I had *lots* of time to spend here doing menial tasks. It's a pleasure to meet you, Liz. I'm glad that you're editing as well! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that makes sense. I've also found editing involving assigning and deleting categories is a lot less subject to debates than corrections involving content and have done some work with the CfD process.
By the way, since you are a long-timer, if a proposal I made goes through and a large number of articles are recategorized, is there an automated way of doing this or do I need to go through and change categories on every article manually? NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Categorization It can be automated or semi-automated depending on the proposal itself. What are you wanting to do specifically? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I had a few proposals over at CfD that I need to check in on and see where they stand. So far, the first ones I proposed were shot down. But, here's an example. There was "Child Actor" and "Female Child Actress" so I proposed "Male Child Actor" and those two categories would both be under "Child Actor". There are approximately 1200 female and 1200 male child actors and the idea of changing those categories manually for the boys was a little overwhelming. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Diffusion That is exactly the sort of thing that I could breeze through. I'm a big fan of just diffusing categories yourself: take the initiative. If you want me to do it, let me know. What else do you want to do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that would be very helpful. I need to go to CfD and see which proposals were okay'd and then get back to you with the information.
For a while, I was thinking that my contribution could be with organizing categories as it is a matter of have accurate category titles and placing categories in right parent-child relationship with each other. But either I'm not presenting my case persuasively enough at CfD or I'm challenging long-standing norms. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
CfD But this is what I'm saying: don't go to CfD, just do what you want (unless what you want is to delete or rename a category). May I have links to the specific CfDs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see this request for help where your name has ben mentioned as a skilled mentor who may fel able to mentor an Asperger Spectrum editor. Would you mind commenting over there rather than here about your willingness and skill to help (or otherwise, naturally). FiddleFaddle17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Mishae said he and you were offering to help on Damon Matthew Wise
We are having problem matching images and evidence back up from period before there were many webpages. Damon set up a whole lot of pages on Ireland OnLine, Eircom, EsatClear (the companies no longer exist) and the are old html 1 or such (mostly text and very basic links) so difficult to find without tags etc - trying to find evidence from Usenet news groups and lists pre-web is near impossible. We have complete access to Damon's facebook which has most of his images - problem is getting the images through permissions with Wikimedia. He has to keep sending permissions and trying to get images unblocked.
They want to condense down the content - instructions in talk ... Damon and his family do no use skype because of risk to the children. He and Karen are letting us use the office computer and let log us on to their social networking sites ... most content of text and images are in his facebook photos = stories from newspaper articles, with links and stuff are tucked away there.
Suggest you contact Damon on his facebook or Karen's and access his photo albums and look around what you can use (most is available to public), so we very lucky of having a lot of past messages and reports. If you make contact on his facebook and have dropbox send him your e-mail address on facebook and we will start giving you archives of the websites from backup drives (that's how we get much content last week.
We have added every potential link down before the references - these can be merged into the text or looked out for useful background relevant to the text.
My recommendation I would suggest that you first userfy this article and then we can work on it together in your userspace. It seems like you've got a lot to say and I have no doubt that we can work on this one. Do you want to do that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Terminology Precisely because "Christian radicalism" is a term which is more-or-less technical and refers to Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. and not just anything that a Christian does or believes which can be considered radical. If there are reliable sources which consistently refer to Christian terrorism as "Christian radicalism" then forgive me: it's an appropriate categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be many sources out there. I had a quick search, and can pull up more if you like, but here is one. The term radicalization is mostly used by the powers and media to describe violent fanatics rather than radical pacifists (unfortunately!). Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources ABC-CLIO seems like a reliable source. If they call Christian terrorism "Christian radicalism" then that's a start but again, the term is widely applied to something else entirely. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I read your user page, and see that you have made over a million contributions. I had to give you a barnstar. I chose this one even though I wasn't sure if you had made a ton of contributions about the Christian faith. But I guess even how much you opened up about your religious beliefs is pretty cool... Ensignricky (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove Category:The Beatles from Maureen Starkey Tigrett? At first I wondered if perhaps you were a new Wikipedian who didn't get how categories work, but having checked your contribs I can see you're far more experienced than I. I'm guessing this was the result of a discussion? I feel like, since she was once married to a member, she should be in the category, but I'm open to considering any reasoning you may have on the matter. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you watch AspieNo1 talkpage, it seams that the storm is brewing there and I don't wont him to be blocked. I'm thanking you in advance!--Mishae (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Grateful Dead -- Bruce Hornsby
Hello. You removed Bruce Hornsby from the infobox list of Grateful Dead members, here. There's sort of an ongoing discussion about whether or not he should be listed. Since you seem to have an opinion about this somewhat controversial subject, I would encourage you to comment, at Talk:Grateful Dead#Bruce Hornsby revisited. Note also the link to the links [sic] to the several previous discussions on this subject, which I would encourage you to review. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)06:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
New Kingdom
I noticed that you created categories for the New Kingdom of Egypt in the 2nd century. But Egyptologists use the term New Kingdom in reference to the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties of Pharaohs. It covers the era from the 16th to the 11th century BC. The 2nd century dates to 13 centuries after the end of the New Kingdom and your categories actually cover Roman rule in Egypt. Perhaps you should nominate these for renaming. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I guess I goofed there. Some of those categories can remain (e.g. the main one) and some will have to be renamed based on anachronisms. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have just welcomed a new user and already informed him of you, so that he can come either to my (I will be gone for a week) or yours talkpage. Can you be kind enough to guide him so that it wont end up like with all other Aspie users? I'm thanking you in advance,--Mishae (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contactee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lunatic fringe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
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.
. Recently, however, I did stumble across this link and, having heard of your occassional unemployment (I'm unemployed right now, and I don't intend to imply that you need money) along with your substantial expertise in leading extremely successful Wikipedia Education Program projects, I thought that you might be interested. I certainly was, myself, and I think that the foundation would be very fortunate to have you on board as the Director of that program. Do you have any interest? I do, unfortunately, have to specifically ask that you shoot me a TW TB msg when you reply to my user page, as I'm terrible at monitoring pages. Anyhow, let me know what you think, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
_by_Ron.jpg)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
_Part_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
