User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2013/June

West Coast Time album cover
Thanks for uploading File:Michelle Branch, West Coast Time album cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict failure
hey. I apparently removed a comment of yours with. I got an edit conflict but it only showed a blank line added a paragraph or so above my post but not your post. I'm not sure how that happened but seem unable to fix from my mobile device. please restore your comment and il check Bugzilla and post on vpt all the details I can tomorrow. Technical 13 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like restored your comment with .  I'll be headed to VPT now to report this, just wanted to make sure that you knew that there wasn't any intent to remove your comment on my part and your comment has been restored.  Sorry to bother you. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion, thanks for taking care of it (before I even noticed!).  user: j  (talk)  22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review
I'd like to ask that you strike the comment in the header of the move review that says there is agreement that there is no consensus - that certainly wasn't the case of those !voting at the article, and the whole purpose of the MR is to determine whether there was or wasn't consensus. That link you provide is just a random gathering of 90% "oppose" !voters, so of course they wouldn't agree with the close. It would make your header statement more neutral. Thanks for considering this. I also added a statement up top, that people should be judging this on its merits, not on the lack of admin bit. There was a ruling on this that I can't find. GOF, an admin, reverted, then undid himself, meaning, the close stands and gets it's day in court. I'd appreciate if you'd make these changes. thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than striking, I simply removed the comment since it's still very early in the discussion and no one has referenced that point. Although there were concerns raised about the closure by some who supported the move, I agree that it's not core to the move review discussion.  I left your comment asking that I strike it, although it's now out of context so you may want to remove it, as well.   user: j  (talk)  07:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks for fixing the template on the article's talk page. I sillily overlooked its demand for the precise date to also be included.   user: j  (talk)  07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's gone now too. no worries- took me a while to figure that out too. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also fwiw, thank you so much for being civil. I know there are some who want to pull out the pitchforks, but you are acting in a civil fashion and I greatly appreciate it even if we may disagree on a content issue. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even in heated discussions and amidst contested decisions, civility should always be required. (It is, in theory and in policy, but not always in practice, unfortunately...)  I can understand why folks care about the things that come up here.  I care, too.  But I usually try to step back and see things from the perspective of other editors (with varying degrees of success, but I do try).  Whatever the outcome of the move review, I hope (and I'm sure) that you'll continue to be bold in making decisions that you believe help.  I disagree with your decision in this particular case, but I don't doubt we're all just trying to improve the project.   user: j  (talk)  08:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its refreshing to meet someone who acts in such a way, and I appreciate the kindness and respect you have shown, and I hope I can show the same to you. I know I can always do better, so please don't hesitate to let me know if you see me crossing the line of civility anywhere in this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Andrea
When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. The allows the users at WP:DPL who fix disambiguation links know that the links are intentional. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 10:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You learn something new everyday. I thought that might have been a possibility, but couldn't find anything indicating as much.  Thanks for the head's up.  :)   user: j  (talk)  00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone my edit and restored the piped redirect link. Thanks, again!   user: j  (talk)  00:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Knesset speakers
Hi. I just wondered do you have some idea what to do with this - Talk:List of Knesset speakers? Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To be precise, what do you think should be done about the table formatting discussion on that talk page, and about my proposed version of Knesset speakers table? Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)