User talk:Jafeluv/Archive/1

Speedy deletion of Vapaus johtaa kansaa
A tag has been placed on Vapaus johtaa kansaa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hot200245 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've moved the content to CMX (band), after reading Notability (music). Jafeluv (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cmx logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Cmx logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ismo Alanko Säätiö
--Dravecky (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Jobim
Hi. Sorry for the move, I did it before reading the discussion page. Actually, I think that the article should be moved to "Tom Jobim". That's the name he was known by. Velho (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Peaches en Regalia
Thanks for having created this article. I always felt it deserved one of its own but I never got to creating it. Keep up the good work. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job
Nice job on list of jazz standards. That's a valuable resource that will serve many. Regards. dissolve talk  23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jazz
Hi. I'm creating a userbox (I call it a Musicbox) that lists people's favorite styles of music. I noticed that you did a fair amount of editing on Jazz styles from the 1930s and 40s. Jazz isn't something I am very familiar with, so I was wondering if you could help me come up with a list of the most common styles of Jazz. For example, under Classical music, I came up with this list: Early music (500-1760), Medieval music (500-1400), Renaissance music (1400-1600), Classical music (1600-1900), Baroque music (1600-1760), Galante music (1720-1770), Classical period music (1730-1825), Romantic music (1815-1910), Impressionist music (1860s-1940), Neoromantic music (1880s-), Modernist music (1890-1930), 20th Century Classical (1900-2000), Neoclassic music (1917-), Contemporary classical music (1945-), Postmodern music (mid 1900s-), Contemporary music (1975-), Minimalist music (1975-), Postminimalist music (1980s-1990s). So far, for Jazz and its related music, I have (Jazz) Jazz, Funk music, Smooth Jazz; (R&B) Rhythm and Blues, the Blues; (Christian) Gospel music; and (Hip Jop) Hip Hop music. Those are actually broken out into different groupings (i.e., Gospel is under religious music, and Hip Hop is its own genre), but I thought I would include all the somewhat related genres and sub-genres so you could get a feel for what (little) I have and where I still need a lot of help. I have also found these, and was going to add them under folk music, but I also see several of them listed as styles of jazz:

Music of Louisiana Do you have any thoughts on this? If not, can you recommend someone you have met here who might be a guru at this and be willing to help? Thanks in advance! :-) &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Acadiana region
 * Creole music (i.e. zydeco)
 * Swamp blues
 * Swamp pop
 * Cajun music
 * Greater New Orleans
 * Afro-Caribbean rhythms
 * Early African, Caribbean and Creole music
 * Dixieland jazz
 * Jazz
 * Ragtime
 * New Orleans blues
 * Blues
 * Gospel music
 * Southern rap
 * Sludge metal
 * Northern Louisiana
 * Country rock


 * Yes! It helps a lot. As to Blues under R&B, I agree. The nice thing is that I can actually list genre under more than one category, so it is possible to have Blues under both Jazz and R&B, and then the user can decide which way s/he wants it listed. Yeah, it's a pretty "special kind" of userbox. It's partly a learning exercise in getting templates to "talk" to each other (Musicbox actually just passes custom parameters to Musicbox/Basic which does the real work). It sounds complicated, but it's much simpler than one massive template that does everything in one. It's also partly a fun userbox in a different style. The regular ones get a little bit boring after seeing 30 or so. I wanted something with a different look and feel. I hope people like it. :-) Thanks for your input and the links. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving Pages
Thank-you for your help. --Alan (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:RfA edit count chart.png
Thanks for doing this. One strong suggestion: modify the chart so that it chronologically flows from left (most distant month) to right (most recent month).

Of the thousands of this type of chart that I've seen, this is the first that I can recall that doesn't follow this left to right convention. Readers are definitely likely to be confused. -- John Broughton (??) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing to make the change, and thanks for the quick response! -- John Broughton  (??) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Loomis
It actually took me a moment before I burst out laughing. Believe it or not, the connection never crossed my mind. Thanks for that. Station1 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion
Thank You for the notice!

I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You! I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the article Lullaby (Sophie Barker album), Why should Jewel's album get the title: Lullaby (album)? this statement has been posted on the Lullaby (Jewel album) move discussion page I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Survey: Your Opinion is Requested

 * "Oppose. Are you saying that any of the entries listed (a band, a magazine, two songs, and a musician) is anywhere near as likely a target for readers searching for "bitch" than this article? If so, unfortunately I feel differently. This is by far the primary topic for this term". Jafeluv (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you still agree with this opinion? If not click here, if yes please update the date of posting

Because...

Thank You, I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maple Ridge requested move
Greetings. It looks like this article is proposing to rename and move the article title to "Maple Ridge". If you want to discuss about the proposed Maple Ridge article rename and Maple Ridge disambiguation title. Click on the article's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Once again, it looks like User:TJ Spyke already made the requested move from Maple Ridge (disambiguation) to Maple Ridge, I already made the requested move first. I know you and I both supported to rename to Maple Ridge to other cities without the Canadian province name so I think you should go to another article talk pages is at another article's talk page. And everything will be settled. Steam5 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of jazz standards (1930s)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of jazz standards (1930s), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of jazz standards. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Higher Ground"
If you had bothered to look at the talk page you would have noted that a discussion has already occurred in which consensus was reached to keep the page separate. Please do not go around indiscriminately merging pages without talk page messages first. The Red Hot Chili Peppers' version is an extremely successful one that charted in many countries and is deserving of its own article. NSR 77 T 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. The user Hatto has previously merged the page and it seems as though he is very determined to make the pages one. A discussion is fine by me. NSR 77 T 11:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bitch Move Survey
''Oppose. Are you saying that any of the entries listed (a band, a magazine, two songs, and a musician) is anywhere near as likely a target for readers searching for "bitch" than this article? If so, unfortunately I feel differently. This is by far the primary topic for this term. Jafeluv (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)''

Is this the un-answered question you were refering to?

Here are the Bitch page statistics...


 * "Bitch" was viewed 39,213 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (band)" was viewed 873 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (magazine)" was viewed 1840 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (Meredith Brooks song)" was viewed 3120 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (performer)" was viewed 527 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (The Rolling Stones song)" was viewed 623 times in May, 2009
 * "Bitch (short story)" was viewed 767 times in May, 2009

If all of the other pages are combined, it makes for a total of 7750 views. But you have to subtract it's attention it's getting form the recent survey. Also, on Talk:Bitch it got 168 views last month, and this month, 563.

Sought &#124; Knock Knock  &#124; Who's There? 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for all your great work on great songs. There are a few of us who work on these, not nearly enough. Your list of standards page looks awesome. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Gareth says. -Bruce Airproofing (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Higher Ground
No disturbance at all! Take care yourself! :) NSR 77 T 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry M. Dawes
Hello. You tagged Henry M. Dawes as a possible copyvio, then removed the tag with the explanation, "apparently the suorce is in public domain." Do you think that you should add a citation of that source, including documentation of its public-domain status? That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the spirit of WP:RS and common standards for sourcing, regardless of copyright issues. Cnilep (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, you've done nothing wrong. I just thought that there should be some citation of the source material (and was too lazy to look it up myself). Thanks for adding the ref. Cnilep (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

White Lies peer review
Hi Jafeluv, I left a few comments in reply to your peer review and i was wondering if you could take a look at them? Thanks, SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!  17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

High Society
Hi. Thanks for your work with music articles. Note, however, that I reverted your move of High Society (Porter Steele). It is not a song. Also, it's generally a good idea to discuss planned article moves on the talk page first (except for obvious cases like typos). I you think the article should be at a better title, please discuss at Talk:High Society (Porter Steele). Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging Articles
Jafeluv, I am new to Wikipedia (Under 3 moths service, and I do not know how to merge articles... Could you be so kind as to help this poor rookie?

Thanks Compression09King-Extreme Wikipedian (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Koko (Parker)
I've answered on my talk page. Station1 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome From Srinivas


Jafeluv, Sri  niv  as  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Sri niv  as  13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks RE:
C'mon! No thanks for the welcome message! It is my job on wikipedia to welcome new users. Hear my word, you'll surely go a long way on wikipedia. I will keep a watch on your actions in wikipedia and guide you through it. I'm a newpage, newuser contribs and recent changes patroller on wikipedia. And you are not supposed to delete your messages! You are supposed to archive them! See Help:Archiving a talk page for assistance on it. Any problem, ask me! I am often here! -- Sri niv  as  13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

White Lies Year debate
Hi Jafeluv, I thought I should reply on here as the review was getting a bit clogged up. I am unsure in what manner the dates should appear, due to your "2009 - present" bit. How do you think the dates should appear? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!  19:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP: Articles for deletion/Han Moo Do
I just wanted to say thank you for your civility and dilligence in the AfD discussion. It's nice to have a debate that remains civil and when people involved can just agree to disagree. So many of these end up going the opposite way. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceran's RFA
I hope I didn't come across as harsh; my role at RFA (when I think I have something to say, which is not a lot these days) is to try to work with the opposition on honing and refining rationales. Some rationales go over better than others. (Watchlisting). - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mind at all. I knew right away that my reasoning would probably sound irrelevant to many (someone's GA reviews aren't really related to RfA at all), but I didn't feel comfortable supporting anyway. I thought about ignoring the whole thing and not posting anything, but figured it's better to post my concerns in the neutral section than to leave the candidate with no feedback at all. In any case, I'm kind of glad someone has actually opposed now, so that people concentrate less on the neutral comments :) Jafeluv (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I agree with you that bringing up old issues is probably a bad idea. Shouldn't have done that. (Not that it's likely to influence the outcome, but anyway.) Jafeluv (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What a great answer, and you're right, I'm a lot more interested in the opposes now :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
I will surely do that. On that note, I would like to invite you to please read my account of the issues raised by other editors in the discussion column. I gave a full account of what happened, with evidence. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your bot
Thank you. I have taken the script out of rotation. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Neuengamme move proposal
wikipedian Jafeluv, thank you for your help. i understand (and concur) with the move of my request from "uncontroversial proposals" to "current discussions". However, I have another problem. whether this difficulty arose from my premature move attempt, or from another circumstance, the article seems movable only with the help of a wiki administrator. is such assistance also in your bailiwick? ciao. -- diremarc (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

you are very fast
you are right on top of this. getting schooled this way makes it much easier for me to wait for the proper procedures to occur. thanks again-- diremarc (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland/Witizen
Thanks for taking time to explain everything. This is a nice and helpful attitude, which is pretty rare here, and therefore highly appreciated. Just one question, if you permit: if Nyttend cannot perform the move, why you've left a note at his page? Maybe I inform some other admin. Wirtland' PR alteady asked me to help do away with this tag. Thanks. Witizen (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

I never said that someone asked me to take care of the page. PR person informed me today that the page was blanked again and asked to clarify. He knows my email because I have contacted his office twice, asking to provide copyright permissions (as was requested by Wikipedians). Of course he's concerned when he sees a red deletion banner. I think that's understandable. Regarding conflict of interest, this has been raised before. I answered that, according to that logic, if a citizen of Wirtland cannot write an aricle about it, than a US citizen cannot write about America. That's my position. Anyway, guess here is not the right place to discuss this, but if there are further questions, I will certainly answer. Witizen (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen


 * I hope so, too. BTW, speaking about conflict of interest: I used to be a major contributor to Wirtland article, but that's not the case any more. There's virtually nothing left from my original text, after so many edits by so many people. Witizen (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen
 * Pardon me; I thought that you were requesting a more complex thing, like some sort of history merge, so I didn't understand what you meant. Perhaps I could have read it more carefully...By the way, the reason I protected it was to prevent further redirection, and I figured that the first admin who came along would equally be able to unprotect it and delete it.  Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I left Witizen a message as I had previously found, in the copyright discussion on Wirtland, some of their attitude a bit worrying for the rasons I mentioned. In particular they seemed to show signs of thinking they owned the article and were, in my opionon, too forceful with their comments.  There had been comments be other editors about both these issues but in my eyes they haven't changed much, hence I thought it appropiate to spell it out to them.  I accept the policy of being WP:BOLD and I don't have a problem with that.  I also don't have a problem with new editors not knowing policy but WP:OWN had already been pointed out to them and their had been comments related to the other policies I gave.  Dpmuk (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think that both of our responses to Witizen lie within the range of acceptable possible responses although obviously towards different ends of the scale.  Just thought you'd appreciate hearing my reasoning. Dpmuk (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Half diminished scale
This source doesn't look too reliable to me, smells kind of self-published. I don't want to remove it altogether, but if you know how scales are notated you should realize that ♯2=♭3 and thus cannot exist in a minor scale. This scale contains a ♮2 (which is a sharpened ♭2 that is present in the regular locrian scale) and is therefore called locrian ♮2. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:RM broken
That is an unrelated error caused by my attempts to upgrade the bot's software to handle multimoves. Due to a lack of foresight, the bot was oriented with an idea of one current title one new title which I am trying to overcome. It has proven to be very difficult. I don't know what the deal is with the date sections, though. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Religious ministry (Christian)
Yeah, sorry about the confusion. I guess i just kind of assumed people knew what that meant. See, technically Christianity and religion are two separate things. Christianity can best be described as a faith or spiritual belief or a relationship with Jesus Christ. You see, religion is a spiritual belief that is centered around rules and knowledge (i.e. Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, etc.). However, Christianity is a spiritual belief that is centered around relationship - more specifically a relationship with Jesus Christ as described in Romans 10:9. Therefore, technically Christianity cannot be described as a religion. Hope this helps. Djc wi (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

United States National Health CARE Act ???
'''United States National Health Insurance Act ? '''

I see no request for this move and do not understand why this has been done. It does not seem right to me.

The correct term is, I am sure, INSURANCE and not CARE. See http://www.hr676.org/

--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The bill's sponsor is John Conyers and his personal web site http://conyers.house.gov/ refers to it as "The United States National Health Insurance Act" and all other places I have seen it (apart from the one you mentioned) call it that. So yes, unfortunately you have been put on a wild goose chase and it should be changed back to that name.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or not. See the actual title for the bill, as introduced in the 111th Congress,
 * "SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
 * United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act"
 * When it was introduced previously it was called Insurance, but the bill provides care, not insurance, (read it if you doubt that - it says you go to any doctor you want and don't pay anything - that's care, not insurance - it would be insurance if for example there were limits or if you were reimbursed, but you are not - you pay nothing) and the title was corrected. I didn't notice the change until it was pointed out, and obviously Conyers website and the advocacy website hr676.org have simply not been updated to show the change. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jafeluv. Please ignore the anonymous writer's points about what the bill said in its content. All that is irrelecant. Yes there does seem to be a mistype of the bill name on the ONE congressional web site he gives. But the fact is that the Act or Bill used the word INSURANCE in the title and not CARE. Please put the article and links back as they were ASAP. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've opened a move discussion for the article on its talk page. If there's no consensus to keep it there, I'm going to move it back. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but I don't think you should be telling people to ignore another editor's good faith comments, regardless of whether they have a registered account or not. Jafeluv (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly got a laugh out of that last comment by Hauskalainen, and I was immediately reminded of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, as they were jumpy for bandits on the way up the mountain to the gold mine and the miner said "morons, I'm dealing with morons, they don't rob you on the way up the mountain, they rob you on the way down the mountain". That "one congressional web site", is the Library of Congress, and is the official record of the text, title, and legislative action of the bill. There is no other site, nor editor who needs to be consulted. It is, as they say, straight from the horses mouth. However, a phone call to Conyers office and to the hr676.org folks should be sufficient to get them to update their SECONDARY websites. It isn't a miss-print - the text of the bill did not change, but insurance was always a misnomer, and has been corrected. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ALBUMCAPS
Hi, Jafeluv. I started a music caps guidelines discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization after seeing your note on my talk. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas
Hi. Please revisit Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel). I have started an article about cloud atlases here and expanded the disambiguation page. I would like to move the disambiguation page back to and move the article to Cloud atlas. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andy Michael
I have sourced and cleaned up Andy Michael. The multiple sources posted by prove that Andy Michael passes WP:BIO, so the article should be kept. I hope you take another look at the article and the newly-discovered sources and re-evaluate your vote at this AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod mix-up
This Islam thing was kind of a strange case. It was done by a new user seemingly in good faith and I'd hoped to save it from either a speedy or an AfD under WP:BITE. I thought the best plan of action was to simply let the prod run its course (which the original poster had removed) and delete it in a few days. Some of the same user's latest edits are very similar, BTW. I'm a bit concerned about setting a precident for things that aren't as opposed to things that are. Anyway, thanks for alerting me. I'll weigh in at the AfD and try and get back to a break. :) Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)
Ah, sorry, usually watch these discussions but I forgot about this one. I've changed my position to support your proposal. YeshuaD avid  • Talk  • 15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: RMlink
RMlink is not used by the bot. It's pretty much useless, but I don't know if it's worth sending to TFD. Maybe it could be marked as a deprecated template. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bringing to your attention
I have noticed a computational error in Assyrian/Syriac Diaspora subpages in regards to the multiple name change. If you simpy click on any of the titles of the proposed articles to be changed and go into the discussion page you will notice they all say "It has been proposed that Assyrians/Syriacs in Israel be renamed and moved to Assyrians in Georgia." They all say "move to Assyrians in Georgia," instead of the country the article is about. Take a look. A few Examples
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrians/Syriacs_in_Israel
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrians/Syriacs_in_Australia
 * and so on

Best Regards Ninevite (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)
I meant to state that there will never be a consensus to move it to (racist). I'll open up a discussion on moving it to (activist). &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible, and I am doing a double-check. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! ? ROUX   ?  04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saaranpaskantamasaari
Well, PROD would not be very good, since I'd just remove it (I do watchlist my articles). You can AfD if you like; I am all done searching for sources so the article really isn't going to be improved much unless somebody else can help. I can assure you, though, that the island exists, Saaranpaskantamasaari is its name, and that the meaning is ambiguous but the most common assumed meaning is what I wrote.

I've actually been wanting to create this article for about two years, and have been hesitant to do so until now because I figured it would get suspicious looks from people accustomed to seeing new joke articles disguised as hard-to-disprove truths. A friend convinced me that it would be okay because there exists an article for it on fi.wiki which has generally high standards, but it looks like he was wrong. I am willing to go through with an AfD if you think that is the best way forward. What I really would like, though, is if someone in Finland were able to come up with a trustworthy source (e.g. a list of all the islands in Finland) that listed Saaranpaskantamasaari along with an explanation of the story behind the name. But as I've said, I've been trying to do that for a couple years now and have so far come up with nothing. Also, I can speak no Finnish, so my only means of pursuing that kind of information is to ask for help from Finns who speak English. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nosleep's RfA
Hi Jafeluv. That was truly a grammatical mess I made on Nosleep's rfa. I've made the fix. Thanks for letting me know! Now why questions 6b and 6c are wrong...

6b) Well, Yes, non-free images of Living Persons may be used only if there is no free equivalent in existence (usually there are free alternatives). However, such usage is to be determined on a case by case basis (e.g. the subject does not wish to be photographed) and subject to heavy restrictions.  In my opinion, I feel that only the first line of the answer is relevant to the question (it's wrong) whilst the rest is just ramblings of someone with a weak grasp of policy attempting to create filler.  Frankly, this question can be answered in as few as 2 sentences.

6c) Overall, I feel that Nosleep was trying avoid answering the question directly by using other examples which are more or less relevant to the situation. However, reading through the answer, the ideas presented are for the most part correct with minor inaccuracies here and there (e.g. obviously non-free images tagged with pd-self are without doubt copyvios which can simply be speedy deleted per WP:CSD without any other action necessary).  Since Nosleep has mostly avoided answering the question (basically a question which can be answered in a short paragraph) and gone on into an inaccurate ramble, I feel the question is half-wrong.

Now of course, I have nothing against Nosleep - it's just that the user has an appalling lack of knowledge in image policy. I was originally planning to have posted something similar to this on the rfa but frankly, I believe there is a very fine line between constructive criticism and being straight-up mean. Hope that helps to clarify things. Best,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem
It's not a problem. Gender-neutral language is a good idea, saves anybody getting annoyed. I kinda like "they" though - makes me sound more menacing. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Re: Editnotice
That would be great! I don't know how to do edit notices, however. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

List of United States district and territorial courts peer review
Thank you very much for the insightful and detailed peer review for List of United States district and territorial courts. I think most (if not all) of your suggestions have been implemented and hopefully it will be a featured list in short order. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Air superiority/supremacy merger
I just wanted to say thank you for cleaning up the mess I made with the whole move/merge thing. I've never been especially knowledgeable when it comes to Wikipedia procedural issues.--Witan 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Records discography
I'd forgotten that I'd AFD'd it. Either way, it shouldn't be there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

University of the Philippines
Thanks for the moves. --Dihamsal (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Every Country Is The United States
Quick reply I have not checked the sources in the article (I have in real life but I can't remember what I put there). If I remember correctly, it is in Bill Bryson's Notes from a Big Country (UK title) I'm a Stranger Here Myself (US title) in a chapter about US IRS forms (for a list of countries that are not the United states see...).

However, the article I think has served its purpose i.e. just a gentle nudge to some people who write US-centric articles. I support your deletion and perhaps I would recommend you try to get it speedy delete instead of AFD but I will support it at AFD if you take that route.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute
Hi Jafaluv, thanks for making the change to my entry, deleting the "The" in the title. I appreciate your help in making the entry more searchable. Thanks to for the tips on getting help on Wikipedia. Scribe36 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Satania
Would you can to correct the errors, in the article Satania?....please --El estremeñu (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How Not To Live Your Life
It seems I've one by default. Either way, I think in this instance it isn't all that important as I imagine that article isn't looked at very often. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC).
 * That is a surprising amount of traffic that article gets. As you say, the issue was more an aesthetic one than anything more important, so I'd not have lost sleep either way. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Islamofascism discussion
I'm not sure why you closed this, but people are still expressing their views. I undid the closure. BYT (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I've been fighting with that template (and losing) all day. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However it doesn't look like that worked either. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn server lag. Now I see that it is gone... Thanks again!

Lambert Park
Thanks for the heads up. I have noticed a lot of what I consider POV nominations and positions on articles of late. It has produced some interesting nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arsenal and Manchester United football rivalry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenal and Manchester United football rivalry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – PeeJay 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD
FYI, the more important issue it that this person needs to explain, on the talk page, what they are complaining about.

They seem to be saying things that are either irrelevant or incorrect, but as they don't explain themselves, this is hard to determine.

Further, there has already been an AfD discussion on this article. This person doesn't seem to be raising anything new. In fact, a bit of perfunctory analysis suggests that it could be the same person as last time, raising the same points, but again, this is not entirely clear.

So, my suggestion to you is that, until this person makes it clear that they have some new grounds for deletion, creating yet-another-AfD for this article is a waste of your goodwill, time and effort.

I hope this is useful information for you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Your chain-of-logic regarding the general principle is impeccable; no complaints from me on that. (I'm just not keen to have to go through a "blow-by-blow action replay" of a matter that was settled some time ago.) C'est la vie. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should thank you for starting the AfD. (However, I feel like you have handed me a poisoned chalice! ;-)
 * In any case, thank you for warning me that you had started it - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An article you edited, Articles for deletion/Todd Williams (The Young and the Restless) is currently up for deletion
FYI. Ikip (talk)

Great work!
Keep forgetting to congratulate you on your great work on jazz standards! And other stuff. Must remember to do it now before I forget again...! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:International E-road network
Just a heads-up: You seem to have missed European route E1 ? European route E01 from your move close. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird speedy tag removal?
Would you please explain, , ? The sockmaster,, has been community banned since March 2009. -- Sander Säde 09:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry - you reverted just as I was leaving the message. We've had loads of troubles with Bloomfield, he does a sock invasion every couple of months, adding a lot of clever hoaxes. It has been years since his first incarnation and I am not sure we've managed to catch all his creations. -- Sander Säde 09:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Alumni of LAMDA
As the discussion for this renaming was closed, I did not get the chance to reply to your last comment "I think those fall under "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form"". This was precisely my argument that LAMDA was "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form". Cjc13 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have since discovered that the academy is registered as a company as Lamda Ltd but registered as a charity as London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, so both names are used. I felt that Alumni of LAMDA, a subcategory of the main category, had the advantage of brevity and was widely recognised (there is even an associated company LAMDA in America, Inc.) but I can understand the dislike of abbreviations, so I am willing to accept the current naming. Cjc13 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD
What an anti-climax! (How sad.) (BTW and FYI, yet-another-incarnation-of-the-IP vandalised my recent edits to an unrelated page ... ) Cheers, --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, sorry, what? What anti-climax? If you're talking about the AfD, I don't see anything happening...? What's going on? Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Yes, nothing's happening. i.e. despite your good work, nothing's happening - the absence of activity is the anticlimax. Cheers, --Pdfpdf (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's just because you've already said everything there is to be said :P Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Lol!) OK. I can't argue with that! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thank you :P Jafeluv (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello seeking assistance
im seeking assistance on the article Amitabh Bachchan as there is a user reverting my edits which have valid references and he just keeps reverting my edits ? could i have some help as i am not too familiar with Wikipedia <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red;font-size:16px">Information- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black;font-size:16px">Line 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for the message but I violated neither WP:3RR nor WP:EW. The first revision I made was reverting vandalism by an anon. That's why I didn't revert the users third revert. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 24
Please read and comment on my support for and proposed changes to the CfD. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 12:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
First, this template is not a requirement but a suggestion (many FAs don't use it). If it is added, it doesn't matter where - the template is not a policy nor a guideline. Placed on the top before the infobox, it looks bad. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is fine, but it should be included where it's more appropriate. FAs I saw use it at the bottom. I think it's not a great deal. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a nice day. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Torture
"There are web sites that can confirm the actual devices exist, but do not mention anything about their use. There are, also, web sites that confirm their usage but do not state the devices exist." The seemed pretty incomprehensible to me, in addition to qualifying as spam. Maybe they exist, maybe they don't? Maybe they are used and maybe they aren't? That's pretty meaningless. To my understanding, G1 isn't just for things like "asdf" articles. If you'd like to repeal the deletion and work on the article, just ask. But I think it's clear the thing qualified under more than one CSD type. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">Steven Walling (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Martin Greatest Hits
I'm not sure which tag to use. Since there's nothing particularly controversial/urgent about the deletion, how should I go about it? Thanks Imperatore (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the AfD process since I have proposed many articles in the past. However I thought a speedy would be warranted here because the said album is a canceled released (never happened) as I explained on its talk page. Therefore it's an article about a non-existant product. Doesn't this reasoning fit some kind of speedy deletion criteria? Imperatore (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll started a proposed del. Regards. Imperatore (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD is now open. As for my confusion between the two procedures, well what can I say, I've been on wiki long enough that I should know these things :( . Imperatore (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

re User:Projectevolve
Hi Jafeluv - Thanks for letting me know about the re-creation of that page. I got a bit caught up, so it took me longer than I'd hoped. It looks (though I may be mistaken) like the new page is original work, so I've removed the speedy tag they created the page with, and left them a (really, really long) note asking them if this is the case, and pointing out some policies/guidelines that might be relevant. I'm not sure if it'll be possible to produce a valid article, but I thought I'd give it a chance to see if any reliable sources etc. could be found. Thanks again for dropping me a note! -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning
Hello Jafeluv, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning has been removed. It was removed by Jackie ohlsen with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jackie ohlsen before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jackie Ohlsen
Hello Jafeluv, this is Jackie ohlsen. When your PROD template came up on my article, I read it and tried to edit it to comply with the guidelines accordingly. Then I re-read it, and it said that once you have edited your page, it could be deleted, however, it would still be up for consideration for deletion. Therefore, I felt your PROD gave permission for the PROD to be deleted and it was NOT any infraction of ant kind. I have tried to follow ALL guidelines and instructions properly and in good faith and feel, if I have done something wrong by deleting your Prod, it was because the PROD itself was misleading. As I stated in the talk page, I feel my article is legitimate, as are my references, exhibits and links and, although I am not as notable as Van Gogh, or Klimt, I feel I deserve to be represented here and, although I am trying not to be, am a bit offended actually. I hope this clears up the whole issue as I was NOT meaning any disrespect, orusing any underhanded actions, and merely following WIKIPEDIA directives as they were presented. May I also say, with all respect, that instructions on the "how too" pages are difficult to understand and follow at times, thus, the confusion. Also,As I have tried to explain and as stated in your guidelines, It is not an Autobiography I am writing about myself. Someone DID write it (see new edits) and it is a TRANSLATION AND PARAPHRASE so the English speaking followers of my work can understand the Swedish text.If you delete it, then you delete it, but I feel it qualifies as it is NOT me writing an autobiography. Jackieohlsen(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie ohlsen (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)    --Jackie ohlsen (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)--Jackie ohlsen (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)