User talk:Koavf/Archive017

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

'I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will probably'' respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.'''

Dashes in article names
Greetings, Koavf. I've started a discussion that may interest you, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. You're one of the editors who previously renamed the article in question. Feel free to join in the discussion there. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input to the discussion about dashes in article names. I'm planning on renaming that article within the next few days.  Also, I did follow your suggestion and archived my user talk page.  — Mudwater (Talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Koavf! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Frans Tutuhatunewa -
 * 2) Michèle Fitoussi -
 * 3) Scott Sundquist -
 * 4) Ngethe Njoroge -

February 27
Hi. You may find this a bit of a strange one, but do you remember back in 2005 when a couple of edits were made under my username to February 27, here and here, which you reverted as possible vandalism. I'd like to say that it wasn't actually me, though the edits were made from this account. I can only suggest that someone I was living with at the time made the edits - I had my username and password written on a note by the PC. I can safely say the none of the edits made on my username on 26 September 2005 were actually made by me until 19:21 with an edit to Panorama (TV series). I'm sorry for any trouble caused and trust this clarifies the situation. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:I'm With CoCo.jpg

 * File:I'm With CoCo.jpg

Any chance you could email the copyright holder of this image, and get it released via a free-use license acceptable for Commons? This could then be forwarded to OTRS for confirmation. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that would be wonderful. Please keep me posted and let me know if you need any help. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part is bothering you.. and I'll try..
Koavf, I'm horrified that it's you that was reverted since I nearly never do it, and you've always been so kind to me. If it's because of the wording, I used to do it professionally, and god, I hate confrontation, but I stand by it, since 50% of the time I'm the Wikignome creating wikiboxes for photos dumped on unwikified articles. If it's photos, it's more complicated. I've uploaded a few hundred photos and placed them all on en.wiki, pt.wiki, sp.wiki, and a few elsewikiwhere. To acheive photos via Creative Commons, I pretty much have to talk pro-photographers out of their copyrights. They don't know me, or if I really edit the Wikipedia. I'm not one for thumping Wiki rulebooks, so I'll tell you where I'm "wrong" technically. We aren't to place photographers' names on the articles. But when it's a new photographer, taking a big gamble (many of the photos -oh, all the Mick Taylor and early Rolling Stones articles, most from The Who, all over, look at my userpage for a partial list of a few hundred uploads I've placed.. sometimes they have book deals for these photos in the works. I persuade them to donate, basically their property, since most rights are gone now. So, I ask editors to please, please, leave the photographers name on the article (have no idea what they get out of it, cause I tell them, it won't last long) but it does give them a sense of certainty that we aren't selling their photos or whatever, and it's real. I only ask that people leave the name there till the page gets past Start level. OTOH, "technically" we are supposed to put the most recent, clear photo in the infobox. The last Mike Mills photo, although nice, was taken 6 years earlier than the one I placed, and wasn't light enough, and of this quality. R.E.M. have asked the photographer for some of his photos for their website. After seeing the Mills article when I was initially done with it, before you came, the photographer was pleased enough that he has now released a large photostream of excellent quality photos all on CC-BY-SA so we can fix a lot of articles missing photos, or with inadequate ones. Normally I move down the original photo chronologically, but having a punctured eardrum that's infected wore me out which is why I didn't respond right away. I can move it down. It's incorrect, I'm sure you must agree that having a photo taking up half an article is wrong. Additionally, I was just bowled over that someone would be so upset over wording and wikification when the article is entirely unsourced. THAT would be my biggest concern, were it on my watch list. I was only trying to be bold and help out, which I've done generally almost at every article I've added photos towards. (Excuse the grammar here, I'm worn out.) Can't we get along? What did I do that was so bad? The photo? The few words? What was it? I really hate confrontations. I've never even seen an edit war. Normally the response is positive. What could it be to revert my work there? And to follow and revert the next article with a photo, too? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah, thanks, I was worried. Only two other experienced editors have ever had any issues with my work. (One over-wikifies and the other has photo credit issues) Honestly, aside from about 5 articles that are slowly coming along since I get so sidetracked, are cleaning up after other people, some well-meaning, some not, some absent. I stand by the technical edits in the text, as with saying that if Mills' child is attending University and it's wikified, I can't see the need to put it's location in the text, as the biography should be about Mills, not his child. I have to wonder, and am puzzled by the amount of text about him, not his famous father.(?) That being said, I know what the issue was now. First, I'm sick, on codeine, and tired in pain. That probably explains the debacle in the infobox. I learned to put together the infoboxes, with directions to follow the model of that of Elvis Presley's infobox as the model, with some obvious non-applicable exceptions. Did I follow it? I just don't feel well enough to check the other article, so.. Just a thought. I'm to bed, half stoned and still miserable. Thanks for clearing up what was the issue. Now to resize Mills' previous photo. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article move
Can I ask the reason for this move? Your edit summary merely says "per main", and I have no idea what you mean by that (the "main article" being Misfits (band)). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

LangWithNameNoItals
I went ahead and nominated it myself (see Templates for discussion), since it's deprecated and unused. But I think you could have put the nomination notice on the talk page anyway. +Angr 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mapit-US-cityscale
I am assuming you still want this template to be nominated, so I unstruck your comments, and added a TFD tag to the template. If you want to withdraw your nomination, let me know and I can close it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Undoing you again
I've undone you a couple of times and I wonder if you are oblivious to my actions. Firstly, the main reason I'm undoing it is because AWB is swapping reference numbers into numerical order. This is usually the case but sometimes there is a specific reason not to. In this case, the order of the reference directly correlates with the corresponding episodes a song has been featured in. Secondly, Pitchfork is actually the WP:COMMONNAME for example http://pitchfork.com/. The reason the page is named Pitchfork Media is to disambiguate it from Pitchfork which is the commonname but an article on something else. The existing use is per WP:PIPING but does not need to deviate from the fullname. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help?
Can I call you Justin? I created an infobox and added a photo-- please leave the credit to the photographer until it reaches Start? He has amazing talent we can use if he can only see that we are legit. My question is this: in making the infobox, during my pharmaceutical haze a few days back (god it's driving me crazy, the infected punctured eardrum, and the medicine) and I'm not sure the parameters are correct. Would you check on Philippe Saisse, and correct it if it's not right? Then I'll copy it, the infobox innards and store in my sandbox so I don't screw something up next time if I did it wrong. It's hard to focus on memory under the abovementioned conditions, but copy/paste are hard to mess up. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then
Justin, I only ask for photograher's credits on articles that are Stubs or unsourced when it's a new photographer that doesn't know me from Satan! Seriously, I approach people, ask them to give up their copyrights, switch to Creative Commons, and I want them to feel comfortable- but do not even discuss this: no promise. However, in increasing instances, after, they open up their entire photostreams of photos to us; even when they could make a lot of money. It's the only reason I'd "break" a Wiki rule. I mean, technically, an unsourced article shouldn't remain, no? I expect the credit to disappear after the article advances! Anyway, I was just trying to re-trace anything I could have done wrong whilst doped by the doctor. Thank you for your re-assurance.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wild bot
Note: Captain R.T. Claridge has been tagged for speedy deletion under G3 by User:Wotnow) (bot
 * Update: The issue has been resolved courtesy of Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers '', including some helpful feedback from WereSpielChequers and   Glenfarclas , and I am satisfied that all is well at this time. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

AWB weirdness
On at least one of the 'Extra album cover 2' pages, somehow this happened. You might wanna double-check some of them. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

On TFD
Removing all uses of a template and then asking for the template to be deleted because it is "unused" has a very bad appearance. You should acknowledge in the TFD nomination if a template is unused because you have just gone out of your way to make it unused. This is particularly true for templates that are actually highly-used.

Nominating deprecated templates for TFD is fine, but you should leave the uses in place until after the discussion. Otherwise, people cannot see how the template is used, and so they cannot evaluate whether to keep it. If the discussion closes as "delete", then someone can unlink all the instances. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An observation on the above, which as you acknowledge merits some consideration. The problem with things like first removing templates and then proposing deletion on the basis of non-use of the templates is that it looks like a suspicious tactic that people use when they have a preset agenda and intend to create the circumstance for their agenda to come about. This is especially if (a) the behaviour looks like a way to avoid discussion that might hamper the foregone conclusion sought, (b) there appears to be selective reference to the relevant literature and (b) there appears to be a history of such behaviour. The net result is that it can be hard for people to know what to make of these things, even if well-intentioned at the time. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. It was just food for thought, and thanks for taking it in that vein. My own opinion of your deprecated template removal is that it looked to me like someone recognising an unrecognised problem, and taking the initiative to fix it. I tend to lean towards commending that sort of initiative. So that was my 'natural' inclination, and I still lean that way. So the comment above is just food for thought on how others can perceive our actions, something which we all have to contend with of course, and which is probably of more significance than any specific guidelines - if we follow the spirit of good faith, we'll get it right more often than if we just follow the letter of the law.


 * I'm fairly good at referencing in general, having done it in several styles over many years. And I know well the only thing that matters in the end: that the reference contains sufficient information for someone having nothing but the reference to rely on, to find the original source. Getting Wikipedia to present a given reference in a manner that one wants can be a bit different of course, especially for some of the more complex and/or lengthy references. To this end, I have sometimes found templates helpful, and sometimes a hindrance. In my initial learning curve of Wiki markups, I just pinched templates from articles that displayed references in the manner I was seeking, hence the mix of styles in several of my edits. And doubtless that's where the Harvard reference templates that I used came from. Later exercises taught me more about referencing templates, to the extent that I am now more flexible in my thinking on them than many who have been Wikipedians much longer than me - an irony that has not escaped me. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FACFailed
Please see my comments here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion of "Whatever Happened to Dobie Gillis?"== A page you created, Whatever Happened to Dobie Gillis?, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Bring Me the Head of Dobie Gillis"
A page you created, Bring Me the Head of Dobie Gillis, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

SDeletes
My bad there, I didn't see that they were ahead of that movie. Won't tag them again. Again sorry. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

List of American institutions of higher education
Just want to let you know I moved your Uncontroversial Request at WP:RM to Contested only because the current article lists institutions that are not in the United States, so the proposed title would be inaccurate. I would have no problem with List of American colleges and universities, or even with you splitting out the overseas universities and then renaming. Station1 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/George Orwell bibliography/archive1
Hi, are you keeping track of this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. No, I personally wasn't planning on commenting there, but I just wanted to make sure that someone was watching the FLC so that it didn't stagnate. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"You're the Greatest Lover"
Hard telling who else is watching the article, but I agree with your idea to merge the 1989 info into the main article. Typically a given song has one article which discusses its various recordings. If I were you, I would just go ahead and do it. I don't think there would be any objections. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that "Yesterday (song)", for example, and an exponentially bigger hit than YTGL, has only the one article and includes a partial list of covers, which indicates the precedent. From your comment, I gather you're telling me to go ahead with it myself if I want, so I might just do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to tweak it as needed. There was a little bit of redundancy and editorializing which I tried to fix. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth
What was the reason for moving Portsmouth (Mike Oldfield single) to Portsmouth (Mike Oldfield song)? There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums about when to use which, but I don't see anything that would affect this article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks okay. The discussion I referred to was actually about which infobox to use, not about article titles.  MUSTARD has a section about "disambiguation" which does not mention using "(single)", so it agrees with your change.  I added a link from that section to the article you quoted me, as it was missing entirely from MUSTARD. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWB/T
I modified your "Brittany" regex because I think you had an error in it. I also moved it to the top.

Before it started with a "\Bri" which would interpret the \B as a an anchor meaning not a word boundary. I don't think that's what you intended so I changed it. Let me know if there's some other use I'm unaware of. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I noticed you went through the Château de Clisson article and globally corrected Britanny to Brittany. All my life I have known how to spell Brittany, but having spent increasing amounts of time in France in recent years I have got used to seeing Bretagne with just one T. Must have thrown me, and the fact that Wikipedia accepts the wrong spelling in a blue link and redirects doesn't help. Thanks for the corrections, and now I must go and look at other edits I've made recently. Emeraude (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Douglas Hale Carpenter
Hello,

Additional links added for G.D. Hale Carpenter here. Is this enough to remove the maintanance tag? Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you & quick reponse. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Template for discussion ...
Hello Justin, please can you revisit and adjust your nomination here as quickly as possible. The tagging is stuffing up pages across the wiki!-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana – A Classic Album Under Review – In Utero
Hi you sent me a message back in Nov 09 about deletion of the article Nirvana – A Classic Album Under Review – In Utero. Although I am the first user in the article's history I did not create the article. I think it should be deleted anyway as its not part of the official Nirvana discography.mjgm84 (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Template clean up
Justin and Plastikspork, thanks for everything you have been doing to clean up deprecated templates. A few templates related to music articles really bugged me, such as "Album cover 2" being stuck with a bad name because the deprecated "Album cover" had the good name. It may seem like a small thing, but every little confusing item like that is a barrier to editors doing a good job.

I've helped with converting usage of deprecated templates to the preferred alternative, but I am not sure what to attack next. Any suggestions? — John Cardinal (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the usual path is to first convert, then deprecate, then delete. Once the deprecated template has been deleted, the newer template can be moved in its place.  If the newer template supports the old usage, then there is no reason to wait.  There are actually quite a few deprecated and orphaned templates out there.  I don't think we should nominate them any faster than the current pace, as there is already a bit of a problem with backlog at TFD.  The current pace seems fine, but I wouldn't want to try to close many more per day. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have been more specific, though I think you've already answer my question on my talk page. I was baslically asking, "What templates need conversion now?" I am now working on Mapit-US-cityscale. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, [ this] is exactly what I was thinking. Perfect.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for style fix
Thanks for the style fix on List of Disney references in Enchanted‎. I was concerned with stopping run-on original research by an editor who'd been blocked for the same, and wasn't sure how to resolve the style issue. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana – A Classic Album Under Review – In Utero
By the way I don't think that this article should be deleted really. It was just that someone had posted a note on page saying that it had been nominated for deletion. I don't really mind either way. mjgm84 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate baseball tags leftover from May 2009 edits
In this vein of edits you deprecated the WikiProject Red Sox template, but in doing so you made a lot of pages that now have two baseball tags. Do you think you can go through and fix this? The importance from the deprecated tag should be as "redsox-importance" and not the base "importance" that is for all of baseball. (e.g. see Talk:Hap_Myers - he may have been mid-important to redsox, but not to baseball project which has him as "low") –xenotalk 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're doing it wrong? You're not converting the old importance from WikiProject Boston Redsox to redsox-importance= –xenotalk 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 250 articles still have this problem - I think most are because of the Redsox thing. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk:1960 Major League Baseball All-Star Game (second game)
 * Talk:Devern Hansack
 * Talk:Doug Taitt
 * Talk:Dutch Lerchen
 * Talk:Eastern College Athletic Conference
 * Talk:Ed Kelly (baseball)
 * Talk:Geno Petralli
 * Talk:Hal Kolstad
 * Talk:Hal Rhyne
 * Talk:Hal Wiltse
 * Talk:Hank Fischer
 * Talk:Hank Johnson (baseball)
 * Talk:Hank Olmsted
 * Talk:Hank Thormahlen
 * Talk:Hap Myers
 * Talk:Happy Foreman
 * Talk:Harley Hisner
 * Talk:Harry Gleason
 * Talk:Harry Hooper
 * Talk:Harry Wolter
 * Talk:Haywood Sullivan
 * Talk:Heinie Wagner
 * Talk:Herb Hash
 * Talk:Herb Hunter
 * Talk:Herb Moford
 * Talk:Herb Plews
 * Talk:Herb Welch (baseball)
 * Talk:Herm Winningham
 * Talk:Hersh Freeman
 * Talk:Hob Hiller
 * Talk:Hobe Ferris
 * Talk:Hoge Workman
 * Talk:Howie Fitzgerald
 * Talk:Hy Vandenberg
 * Talk:Jack Harshman
 * Talk:Jack Hayden (baseball)
 * Talk:Jack Hoey
 * Talk:Jack Killilay
 * Talk:Jack Lamabe
 * Talk:Jack Merson
 * Talk:Jack Rothrock
 * Talk:Jack Stansbury
 * Talk:Jack Tobin
 * Talk:Jake Jones
 * Talk:Jake Stahl
 * Talk:James Lofton (baseball)
 * Talk:Jason Shiell
 * Talk:Jeff Gray (1980s pitcher)
 * Talk:Jeff Newman (baseball)
 * Talk:Jeff Richardson
 * Talk:Jermaine Van Buren
 * Talk:Jerry Mallett
 * Talk:Jerry Remy
 * Talk:Jerry Standaert
 * Talk:Jerry Trupiano
 * Talk:Jigger Statz
 * Talk:Jim Galvin (baseball)
 * Talk:Jim Gosger
 * Talk:Jim Henry (baseball)
 * Talk:Jim McDonald (pitcher)
 * Talk:Jim McHale
 * Talk:Jim Pagliaroni
 * Talk:Jim Pankovits
 * Talk:Jim Suchecki
 * Talk:Jim Willoughby
 * Talk:Jim Wilson (pitcher)
 * Talk:Joe Foy
 * Talk:Joe Giannini
 * Talk:Joe Gonzales (baseball)
 * Talk:Joe Harris (pitcher)
 * Talk:Joe Hesketh
 * Talk:Joe Hudson
 * Talk:Joe Lahoud
 * Talk:Joe Lucey
 * Talk:Joe Mulligan
 * Talk:Joe Nelson
 * Talk:Joe Price
 * Talk:Joe Rudi
 * Talk:Joe Sambito
 * Talk:Joe Wilhoit
 * Talk:Joel Finch
 * Talk:Joel Johnston
 * Talk:John Freeman (baseball)
 * Talk:John Godwin (baseball)
 * Talk:John Henry Johnson (baseball)
 * Talk:John LaRose
 * Talk:John Leister
 * Talk:John Lickert
 * Talk:John Michaels
 * Talk:John Shea (baseball)
 * Talk:John Smith (AL first baseman)
 * Talk:John Warner (baseball)
 * Talk:John Woods (baseball)
 * Talk:Johnnie Heving
 * Talk:Johnny Lazor
 * Talk:Johnny Lipon
 * Talk:Johnny Lucas
 * Talk:Johnny Marcum
 * Talk:Johnny Reder
 * Talk:Johnny Tobin
 * Talk:Jonathan Van Every
 * Talk:José Malavé
 * Talk:José Santiago (1960s pitcher)
 * Talk:José Tartabull
 * Talk:Justin Masterson
 * Talk:Karl Olson
 * Talk:Kason Gabbard
 * Talk:Keith Foulke
 * Talk:Ken Coleman
 * Talk:Ken Grundt
 * Talk:Ken Holcombe
 * Talk:Ken Macha
 * Talk:Ken Ryan
 * Talk:Ken Tatum
 * Talk:Ken Williams (baseball)
 * Talk:Ken Wood (baseball)
 * Talk:Kerry Lacy
 * Talk:Kevin Romine
 * Talk:Kevin Tolar
 * Talk:Kip Selbach
 * Talk:Kyle Jackson
 * Talk:Kyle Snyder
 * Talk:Larry McLean
 * Talk:Larry Pape
 * Talk:Larry Parrish
 * Talk:Larry Pratt (baseball)
 * Talk:Lee Graham
 * Talk:Lee Gronkiewicz
 * Talk:Lefty Jamerson
 * Talk:Len Okrie
 * Talk:Len Swormstedt
 * Talk:Les Howe
 * Talk:Les Moss
 * Talk:Les Wilson (baseball)
 * Talk:Lew Krausse, Jr.
 * Talk:Long Tom Hughes
 * Talk:Lou Boudreau
 * Talk:Lou Finney
 * Talk:Lou Legett
 * Talk:Lou Lucier
 * Talk:Louis Leroy (baseball)
 * Talk:Luis Rivera
 * Talk:Marc Sullivan
 * Talk:Mario Guerrero
 * Talk:Marty Krug
 * Talk:Marty McManus
 * Talk:Marty Pattin
 * Talk:Marv Grissom
 * Talk:Marv Olson
 * Talk:Marv Owen
 * Talk:Mel Parnell
 * Talk:Merle Settlemire
 * Talk:Mike Fiore
 * Talk:Mike Guerra
 * Talk:Mike Herrera (baseball)
 * Talk:Mike Holtz
 * Talk:Mike Macfarlane
 * Talk:Mike Ryan (catcher)
 * Talk:Mike Ryba
 * Talk:Milt Gaston
 * Talk:Myron Grimshaw
 * Talk:Ned Martin
 * Talk:Neill Sheridan
 * Talk:Nels Potter
 * Talk:Norm McMillan
 * Talk:Norwood Gibson
 * Talk:Olaf Henriksen
 * Talk:Ollie Marquardt
 * Talk:Oscar Fuhr
 * Talk:Oscar Judd
 * Talk:Ossie Vitt
 * Talk:Otto Miller (third baseman)
 * Talk:Paddy Smith (baseball)
 * Talk:Pat Mahomes
 * Talk:Pat Simmons (baseball)
 * Talk:Paul Campbell (baseball)
 * Talk:Paul Hinrichs
 * Talk:Paul Howard (baseball)
 * Talk:Paul Maloy
 * Talk:Paul Musser
 * Talk:Pawtucket Red Sox
 * Talk:Pee-Wee Wanninger
 * Talk:Pete Fox
 * Talk:Pete Magrini
 * Talk:Pete Runnels
 * Talk:Peter Hoy
 * Talk:Phil Marchildon
 * Talk:Phil Plantier
 * Talk:Phil Seibel
 * Talk:Phil Todt
 * Talk:Pinky Higgins
 * Talk:Pinky Pittenger
 * Talk:Pinky Woods
 * Talk:Pop Rising
 * Talk:Pumpsie Green
 * Talk:Rabbit Warstler
 * Talk:Ralph Glaze
 * Talk:Ralph Pond
 * Talk:Ramón Hernández (pitcher)
 * Talk:Randy Heflin
 * Talk:Randy Kutcher
 * Talk:Ray Boone
 * Talk:Ray Francis
 * Talk:Ray Jarvis (baseball)
 * Talk:Red Morgan
 * Talk:Red Shannon
 * Talk:Reggie Harris
 * Talk:Rich Gale
 * Talk:Rich Rowland
 * Talk:Rick Ferrell
 * Talk:Rick Lancellotti
 * Talk:Rick Miller (baseball)
 * Talk:Rico Petrocelli
 * Talk:Rip Williams
 * Talk:Robert Person
 * Talk:Rod Allen
 * Talk:Roger Moret
 * Talk:Román Mejías
 * Talk:Ron Jackson (first baseman)
 * Talk:Rube Foster (AL pitcher)
 * Talk:Rube Kroh
 * Talk:Rube Walberg
 * Talk:Rudy Minarcin
 * Talk:Rudy Sommers
 * Talk:Russ Gibson
 * Talk:Russ Kemmerer
 * Talk:Sammy Charles White
 * Talk:Scott Fletcher (baseball)
 * Talk:Sean McDonough
 * Talk:Sid Hudson
 * Talk:Skeeter Newsome
 * Talk:Ski Melillo
 * Talk:Skinny Graham
 * Talk:Skinny Graham (outfielder)
 * Talk:Slim Harriss
 * Talk:Spike Merena
 * Talk:Squanto Wilson
 * Talk:Stan Papi
 * Talk:Stan Spence
 * Talk:Steve Lomasney
 * Talk:Steve Renko
 * Talk:Steve Rodriguez
 * Talk:Steve Slayton
 * Talk:Steve Yerkes
 * Talk:Ted Wills
 * Talk:Ted Wingfield
 * Talk:Terry Hughes (baseball)
 * Talk:Tex Hughson
 * Talk:Tex Pruiett
 * Talk:Tilly Walker

Feature request: User preference for styling citations
In the request you placed on Village pump (technical) you wrote "Presently, sources are to be cited using Citation and similar templates such as Cite web...." This is phrased as if the use of templates is mandatory. It is not. Please see WP:CITE for more details. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop
Will you at last stop those disruptive mass page moves? You know perfectly well you have no consensus for them. Stop. them. now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The latest relevant discussion that I'm aware of is this, which led to this clarification in the relevant wikiproject guidelines. WP:DASH is utterly irrelevant – I'm not talking about orthographic trivia such as the choice of dash, but about actual grammar, the choice between adjectival and nominal compound forms. I don't care what you do with the dashes, but don't go exchanging adjectives with noun forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you must enforce typographical consistence, then move to an en-dash version (or whatever it is you prefer) of the adjectival form you found. Do what you must with the typography, but kindly leave the English language alone. Respect the grammatical choices of those editors who wrote the articles and actually cared about the wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re : As I said, I simply do not care whether it's with a hyphen or with a dash. What I do care about is the wording, that's what "proper English" refers to. Actual grammar, not typographical trivia. As for the WP:DASH rules, one other editor earlier involved in these moves had explicitly insisted that while noun–noun compounds should have the en-dash, adjectival compounds should have the hyphen, so in that case I respected that opinion of his. In most other cases I simply reverted back to whatever was there before your most recent move. I find Good Olfactory's rule actually reasonable, although I have no strong opinion about it; and unlike you seem to think, WP:DASH doesn't say anything to the contrary. WP:DASH only says that if you are using disjunctive nominal compounds you should use the en-dash. Adjectival compounds don't fall under that rule. They are simply not mentioned in WP:DASH, nor does WP:DASH cover the question of when to use the former or the latter (nor would that even be within its remit.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re : Stop inventing your own rules of grammar. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Koavfese Wikipedia. In careful usage by good writers of English, adjectival compounds such as "Polish-German relations" are far and away the most common way of referring to this notion, and therefore the grammatically correct option. The world doesn't care whether you find that logical or ambiguous or whatnot. We are not going to change the English language to suit your whims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Israel–Palestine
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Israel–Palestine. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Israel–Palestine. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: By-Sexual
Hello Koavf, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of By-Sexual, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They released several albums, and there is at least one reference on the article. That should be enough to pass WP:MUSIC, assuming that the albums were released on a major or notable independent label. Wikipedia has articles on both record labels the band appeared on. Please review WP:MUSIC, and remember that passing just one of the criteria there is enough to demonstrate notability. - 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that an article about Japan (or some other country where English is not the main language) can be difficult. You can often evaluate potential sources with Google Translate at http://translate.google.com If you see an article that might be eligible for deletion, but you are not sure, it is better to ask other editors for their opinion, probably at the appropriate WikiProject, rather than nominate the article for deletion. In this case, I can't read or speak Japanese, but I applied the usual Wikipedia standards, and the band passed. Also, some articles indicate in the left column that versions are available in other languages. Often you will find that the articles in other languages are better and contain information that can be added to the English version. Again, if you don't read or speak the other language, use Google Translate. - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Final warning
You were warned not to make those disruptive mass moves of bilateral relations articles in August 2007, August 2008 as well as here, and again in the thread above. You had previously been indef-blocked and afterwards put under Arbcom parole for rampant edit-warring in 2007. Despite all the previous warnings, which meant you had to know the moves were contentious, you just came back to the same thing after a few months each time pretending nothing had happened, resuming the moves without any discussion and/or falsely filing move requests as "uncontroversial" at WP:RM. Despite all warnings and explanations, and despite your own (apparent) promise to stop, you have now engaged in blatant, outright move warring over German-Polish relations. If I see you moving any such article without consensus one more time, I will do whatever I can to get you blocked or permanently banned from this group of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologise for getting slightly confused in assuming the German-Polish one had been among those you moved recently. Nevertheless, your renewed move back to "Germany–Poland" was blatant move warring. As for my tone, well, I can't help it, I get impatient when I see you (a) repeatedly causing the same disruption every few months, pretending the previous warnings had never happened, and (b) trying to rationalise the disruptive moves with your own home-spun pseudo-linguistic grammatical rules, which flat out contradict linguistic reality. As for the German/Polish case and Good olfactory's precedent, he had indicated he would accept either adjective+hyphen or noun+dash; he had previously moved from adjective+dash to noun+dash, so I moved it back to his other acceptable version, adjective+hyphen. If you object to that, please work out with Good olfactory or anybody else who might be interested how to format the adjectival phrases; as I said, I don't care about that; but don't go pretending that WP:DASH proscribes them, or that they aren't proper English, when in fact they are demonstrably not just that but the only proper English form in actual use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are of course right that my stance on grammar is a descriptive one, like that of most every professional linguist today. But I would advise against dignifying your own approach with the label of "prescriptivism". Proper prescriptive grammar has traditionally been engaged with promoting and protecting norms of proper language that were vetted by tradition and by the usage of the best writers (if often those from an earlier, "classical" version of the language). In your case, your "prescription" – against the adjectival compounds – is based on no such tradition; it's a rule you have simply invented personally, out of thin air, based on your own faulty analysis of their supposed semantics. That's not "prescriptive" grammar, it's merely bad grammar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles' album's infoboxes
Could you please explain the changes you made to the entire Beatles catalogue? You cite Template Infobox Album as your rationale, however, the template does not say anything about including the city, country or nation where the album was recorded, nor does it say that you should undo the formatting that other editors spent a lot of time on trying to clear up the clutter of multiple session dates and multiple studios. What is your explanation?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent rename
Hi, I just saw you move the How to be a millionaire page, citing capitalisation. In standard English, one doesn't capitalise articles ('a', 'the') in the middle of sentences. It should be moved back. Indeed, it should actually be moved to (How to be a) Millionaire. → ROUX   ₪  02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Going Away
If an album is by a redlink band, it can be speedied via db-album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reflections (The 5th Dimension album)
What is your rationale for moving Reflections (The 5th Dimension album) to Reflections (The Fifth Dimension album)? The actual (factual) name of the artist is The 5th Dimension, NOT The Fifth Dimension. Maybe I just don't understand what you did. Please respond below. --hulmem (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops That was a silly mistake. Pardon me and thanks for the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, no problem, I see you have reverted the move and made a correct move for Earthbound (The 5th Dimension album). Thanks  --hulmem (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FM
Hi, I notice you added "DEFAULTSORT:Fm" to both Category: FM (British band) albums and Category: FM (Canadian band) albums. I presume "FM" was getting sorted differently from "Fm", i.e. maybe before "Fa"? I notice that on Category:Albums by artist (use this link), where they both appear, Canadian appears before British. Is there any reason Defaultsort could not say "Fm (British band)" or "Fm British band"? Also, should a similar change be made to the artists' articles? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bee Gees
Hi, what is your rationale for the changes to Bee Gees albums that you recently did? They don't even call themselves "The Bee Gees" on the albums, just "Bee Gees". Ferdinandhudson (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Album format on Ẁurdah Ïtah
Thanks for fixing the alternate covers setup in the infobox - I hope I have learned how to do it myself now (if not, I do now have a template ;) Cheers, BNutzer (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

U of I move
I think I understand what you did here, but I'm not sure I understand why. Could you explain? HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop
your petulant, disruptive editing of articles with regard to ndashes and mdashes. Please also stop adding "UK" or "United Kingdom" to United Kingdom-related articles unless you change consensus on each article's talk page first. I will not ask you again.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lemonheads" vs "The Lemonheads"
Noticed your recent edits (10 February 2010) regarding this...as a founding member of the band, I can attest to the fact that the name actually WAS "Lemonheads" (no "the") during the period of our TAANG! releases ("Hate Your Friends," "Creator," and "Lick"). No big deal, but if you'd consider reverting those edits to the original formatting, it would be more accurate...I imagine that disambiguation probably isn't a big issue here... :-) Up to you. Best, Withnail68 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I think I grasp what you described--my wikipedia chops are minimal :-) --but it sounds like it all makes sense... Keep up the good wiki-ing! Best, Withnail68 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
There is a discussion at AN/I in which you may wish to participate.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Default sort
You may not know sort articles sort, so I will explain. Articles, by default, sort by their name. So adding something like to the WWE Home Video article does nothing, the article already sorts by that name anyways. It's like typing WWE Home Video, it just adds redundancy. 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Still sorts correctly. WWE correctly is supposed to sort before something like Warp (that's how alphabetical sorting works).  TJ   Spyke   02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hera Pheri
i donlt really see Template:Hera Pheri's entry at templates for deletion. though you left me a message. Gman 124 talk 02:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)