User talk:Koavf/Archive019

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.'''

Category:B-side collections
Hi Koavf, I notice you've been adding Category:B-side collections to a number of articles about compilation albums, and I'm wondering what the criteria is that you're using in applying it. The reason I ask is that several of the articles you added the category to that are on my watchlist don't seem to meet the category's description, which is "albums consisting of the b-sides of singles." For example, Alkaline Trio doesn't consist of b-sides: 8 of the 13 tracks are from EPs, 2 consist of their debut single, and the other 3 were specifically recorded for label or tribute compilations. Same thing with Remains, only 5 of the 22 tracks were on b-sides of singles; the rest are from EPs or are live tracks. Cocktails & Dreams is another; only 1 track was a b-side. Then there's Garage Inc.: 1 whole disc is new recordings, ⅓ of the 2nd disc is an EP. I think only 9 or 10 tracks of the album's 27 were ever used as b-sides on singles. Some of these albums are just simply compilation albums: they may include a few actual b-sides but mostly they're compilations of most of the band's rare material, including EPs and in some cases new recordings. The first 3, at least to me, don't seem to fit the description of being "albums consisting of the b-sides of singles", so in those cases I felt the category was misapplied. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the subject. If you don't mind, I'd prefer it if you'd respond here. I dislike conducting conversations across separate talk pages, as it makes thing disjointed and difficult to follow. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I appreciate your input. I used a generically broad understanding of "B-side" as in "not an album cut or song from a various artists compilation" and applied the category if I figured that a significant portion of the songs were B-sides (e.g. on Dead Letter Office, two of the tracks weren't literally B-sides, but clearly the purpose of the album is to collect those kinds of songs.) If you feel like some of these are in error, I completely support you reverting and I can take a closer look at the articles to which I applied that category if you'd like. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a perfectly good explanation. I often interpret "b-side" more broadly than just "the b-side of a single" myself, but my interpretation is more along the lines of "a song recorded as part of a larger session, such as for an album or EP, but left off of the final release". Many such songs are released as actual b-sides to singles, but others often don't see the light of day until a compilation album comes along. But to me they're still b-sides, and I think that's pretty much the industry standard definition in the music world. I agree with you that on some releases the clear purpose is to collect these types of songs, so I can see why you added the category. No worries, I've already changed the ones that I was concerned with. Thanks for the speedy reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnapop discography
Discography articles do not have song categories in them. Hence the incorrect WikiProject tagging of this article and my removal of the song category. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You ask some good questions! I'm going to do some searching around to see if I can find answers. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy
I know you raised it in your ANI report, but it seems to have got lost in the sea of blue. Therefore I've raised the issue of Radiopathy adding a uw-3rr to an archived talk page on that thread. IMHO, the warning is not valid, and should be struck through, but I'd leave it as it is for now while we await input from other editors at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs by artist
Hi, although I opposed your suggested name, I do share your concern that it is probably not the correct category name. How did you feel about my suggestion of "recordings by artist?" Does it hold water and does it start to get us away from the misleading "Foo songs?" Your comments would be illuminating. You can reply here or on my talkpage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recordings "Recordings" is better in some respects—e.g. it's not as unwieldy—but it does not include songs that weren't recorded and it would also appear to include albums and EPs (certainly those are "recordings".) As long as the song/instrumental/composition trifurcation exists, I don't see a clear answer. The strength of "X songs" is that it's at least intuitive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept your point about albums and EPs, I didn't think that through, but I can't think of any example of a song (or! etc.) that wasn't recorded. Hmm. Back to the drawing board! I dislike intensely the implication of ownership that 'Foo songs' imparts. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recordings There are probably some classical music compositions that are unrecorded or their recording is so unimportant as to be excluded from the article itself. Of course, that wouldn't apply to "X songs", as these are almost exclusively contemporary popular music, but... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case the category should be "compositions by composer" which is the classical cat scheme. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

States suspending relations with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Perhaps you haven't read it carefully, 2 countries I delete from the list reassumed relations with the SADR (Burundi & Chad) & there isn't any Syrian official declaration or date of suspension of relationships with SADR, you have references about it, so it's totally nonsense to maintain them, unless you have other interests...--77.230.96.32 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnapop category
That's not what it says. According to Categorization, "it is helpful to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it contains, how they should be subcategorized", etc. There is no need to repeat the intro from the main article itself. That's what the catmore template is for. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Aliass
I really see no reason to list one-off aliases in R.E.M. intended to obscure the band's identity when putting on secret/impromptu shows that aren't even mentioned in the article body. It's trivia, and adds nothing to the understanding of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Live Albums category
Hi Koavf! I just wondered why you've removed the Live albums category from the The Byrds' Live at the Fillmore – February 1969 album article? It is indeed a live album by the band and so it should probably be listed in this category, no? I'm just wondering if there's something you know that I don't? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb
You are one of very few people to have previously edited the Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb redirect. I would like your input on this page. Can you please see Talk:Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb when you have the chance?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:2010 soundtracks
Could you review this category please. Personally I think it should be deleted and whoever created it probably did it on a whim, Not realizing that soundtrack albums are included with other albums. QuasyBoy 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, No Prob. :) QuasyBoy 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Excuse me, but I have a problem with this person who vandalize (Article Haratin) Algerialove ever since this section alters a person without reason article for pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comesturnruler (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

THANKS KOAVF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comesturnruler (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but Koavf algerialove again vandalized and it gets tiring at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comesturnruler (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Territory
I noticed that you edited Arizona Territory a few weeks back, but apparently stopped in the middle of something and saved your edits, with most of the content deleted. Mistake?

Shrug. I undid your last revision. Take a look if you're interested. -- Eriksiers (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I live in AZ and just happened to be following links when I noticed a sentence that just stopped in the middle. Shrug. Mistakes happen. (I've certainly made my share of them.) -- Eriksiers (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Grateful Dead navbox
Greetings, Koavf. There's a discussion of sorts that may interest you at Template talk:Grateful Dead. Feel free to join in. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Cornelius Gemma aurora image
I think I see why there might be an issue with File:Cornelius Gemma aurora.pdf. Because of the source? The image itself, however, is a faithful representation of a work of art that is 'way past any copyright limit (16th century), which is why I thought at fairly small size it was OK. I was unable to find a discussion of it at either of the links you provided, nor was the image itself marked for deletion. I don't have strong feelings about it either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, quite right about the pdf thing; how'd that even happen? Must've been an unthinking mistake. Someone's made a jpg copy, so delete away. You'll replace the pdf with the correct format, or will I need to? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Here's what happened. It seems I had inadvertently uploaded a pdf copy of this file (instead of a jpg) and placed it on the Cornelius Gemma page, which I had created. Someone else either copied this file as a jpg, or uploaded an entirely new version to Commons. What I didn't know when I responded previously to you was that back in December someone had already replaced the original image with one in the proper format. So ... tempest in a teapot. Yes, the pdf should be deleted; and no further action is needed. Sorry for the confusion. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of In the Morning (Tír na nÓg album)
Hi there, I added references on the talk page for the album's deletion Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Morning_%28T%C3%ADr_na_n%C3%93g_album%29 Tell me what you think about, thanks. Regards, --Vegetable man38 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A.J. Muste categoruies
is there a reason you removed categories from A.J. Muste here ? Pohick2 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Art of Donald McGill
Hi Koavf,

I see you added this to the Orwell template. Thanks for that. I looked at the article and found a discrepancy in the publication dates of Decline of the English Murder in that article (1950) and its own (1965). This may well be because Secker and Warburg published under different titles (e.g. "Dickens Dali and Others" I believe is the US edition of the UK "Decline of the English Murder" -- certainly my mid-60s Penguin copy has Benefit of Clergy i.e. Dali and a long essay on Dickens, plus McGill and Decline of the English Murder) so I doubt any editor's facts are wrong as such, probably just published in different places under different names. I don't have the Collected Essays, Letters and Journalism now -- which took me years to collect as they are often out of print, not expensive just hard to find -- bbut I think that lists what they were published under in the US and UK. I am hazy on the names for elsewhere. (Were there any? Canada and Australia would seem the obvious candidates but I can't remember them being mentioned at all. May have come under the UK publishers as Commonwealth, but Canada was fully independent in 1967 and the CE did not come out until 1968.)

Best wishes, thanks for updating the infobox.

Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I need to clean out my talk page – I was away for about three months so it got a bit cluttered. I usually just delete it rather than archive it, because either it is thanks which makes you look like you're polishing your prizes, criticism which I am happy to get and resolve but when it's sorted there is no need for it, or discussions which usually then go to the article talk after initial discussion with the contributor turns into more interesting stuff about the article, and so it is better then on the article's talk than mine. So this is detritus and I will get round to cleaning it out. Thanks for the reminder. (I'll keep yours of course while it is ongoing.)

My "Decline of the English Murder" is Penguin Book 2297 at the price of 3/6 (that is, three and sixpence, now 17.5p). This is the 1965 edition (no ISBN of course). It is listed as Pengiuin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England and Penguin Books Pty Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia (exactly how the front page says it, I didn't elaborate or abbreviate). Contents:


 * Bibliographical Note 7
 * Decline of the English Murder 9
 * A Hanging 14
 * Benefit of Clergy 20 (this is Dali)
 * How the Poor Die 32
 * Rudyard Kipling 45
 * Raffles and Miss Blandish 63 (this is very relevant to decline of the english murder)
 * Charles Dickens 80
 * The Art of Donald McGill 142
 * Notes on Nationalism 155
 * Why I Write 180

The numbers are page numbers (it's a contents page) so might give you a rough idea of their length if you've not read/got them all. I read them first all in the Collected Essays, but lost my cheap Penguin paperback copies, having been told I would get a nic Collected Works for my birthday (which I didn't). So I have to go from memory what the CE says, but I am probably not bad at least to steer in the right direction, even if I am wrong I don't mind, I can probably say roughly where Orwell says this or that. He is my favourite author, I suppose others grow out of him, but I have loved him since I first read him aged twelve and next week I shall be thirty-eight.

Best wishes, happy Easter, Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW I have a nice collection of McGill postcards, but I doubt they qualify for fair use. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a book cover scan to En:WP (I can't add it to Commons because it has a different policy for fair use; EN:WP specifically has a policy for book covers and it is deliberately low resolution); curiously enough (as Orwell would say) the cover is by Peter Blake. At the princely price of three and six, as you can see in the top right corner. It comes out at 4Mb JPG even at that resolution so I shall try to make a .PNG of it as it seems not to make thumbnails of JPGs; I am a software engineer and should know how to do that, but if you beat me to it, I shan't worry.


 * I added with all the details I have, but if you have a more specific template, then I won't mind it changed. It's always a start to get these infoboxes in, and once someone does it (which can be rather fiddly) it then is quite easy for others to change it.


 * Happy Easter


 * Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I should have self-nominated the JPG for deletion as a duplicate. I will add a note that I support the deletion. Yes 7MB for the PNG is ridiculous, that is from Windows Paint which I think Microsoft makes deliberately awful (and for JPGs too). I was not too worried because I thought that the Wikipedia engine will create a thumbnail if you ask for one (the "thumb" attribute of the File: link). But unlike Wikimedia Commons, it doesn't say on the file's page that it has thumbnails in other sizes (or perhaps I am confusing that with doing SVGs, where the size is nominal anyway as it's vector graphics). If the image is 7Mb but the thumbnail is only a few Kb, then that is perfectly fine with me as it stands: If the image was really being squirted down the Internet at 7Mb that would be intolerable, of course, but I cleared my cache and downloaded the page and it came in at a litle under 70Kb, which is probably quite acceptable these days. So I think no harm done to have the large original if the thumbnails are of a reasonable size.

Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

By
Go ahead, do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one albums in Finland
Dear Justin: I came across your skeletal article List of number-one albums in Finland and the summary for your one edit says you created it due to a CfD. Could you point to the CfD in question? Please reply at my talk page. Thanks. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:JAZZ
Hello, I have been working on a request to have Xenobot V add the WP:JAZZ banner template to jazz-related articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1). I just noticed that you had already been working on this, at least for the "Category talk" pages. If you are working on articles, as well, then perhaps the 'bot request is redundant. Otherwise, is it going to cause problems for your work if I go ahead with this request? Just figured I should check. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My user page
Thanks for your message. It looks like 'Category:Cleanup by month', which was in one of the collapsed boxes on my user page, was soft redirected last October to 'Category:Articles needing cleanup'. I've removed it, which should sort the problem. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Rome renaming
Perplexed and exasperated as I am by the resistance to your innocuous proposal, I have reintroduced this for discussion at the G&R project here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:User html-0
Please note that I have removed your TfD tag from User html-0, as you haven't created a nomination, and didn't give a reason for deleting it. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to list it at WP:MFD; please note, though, that several discussions about similar user boxes were closed as keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same with User haskell-0. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Bot interwiki removal
See User_talk:Xqt. Greetings -Xqt (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for periodically looking over my expansions of Illinois (album) over the past month or so. It just became a good article, and you deserve a pile of credit! Thank you!  Jujutacular  T · C 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ndash
Hi Koavf, Re: Alfred Brendel – Unpublished Live and Radio Performances 1968–2001 I noticed you replaced the html unicode for ndash "–" with the "–" character. I was wondering whether this is Wikipedia policy. I recently switched from using the "–" character to using the html code because when I'm typing in the text edit box in my browser I cannot distinguish the ndash character from a hyphen ("-"). At least when I'm editing there is no doubt in my mind when I see the html code, and I don't have to use my Character Template to check whether it is a hyphen rather than the ndash. (Maybe there is an easier way?) Thanks for help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with the template Ndash? of the Template:2010music replaced the template's output, "&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash; ", with "&amp;nbsp;–". That's not the same thing and the resulting appearance is severely worse than the previous version. I'm going to revert your modification. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your change seems to have added an extra leading space before some of the ndash characters. Also I did not see anything which says that the html code for ndash cannot be used. The ndash template was used before your change, and it does seem to be a problem, so I think I see why you made the change. The template does not appear to work well. So I am going to make some further changes to your modification to correct the extra space and use the html ndash for easier identification of the character in the edit window. Since the end result seems correct, that seems OK to me. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Illinois (album)
Indeed, I would love to get it to FA status. Any continued proofreading/cleanup would be appreciated. If you know of any extensive sources I'm missing out on, feel free to point me in their direction.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, and feel free to expand it as well. Whatever you feel comfortable with. I've never really done writing collaboration before, but I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks for taking an interest!  Jujutacular  T · C 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Politicians from Åland
Please note that I have removed your CfD tag from Category:Politicians from Åland, as you haven't created a nomination, and didn't give a reason for deleting it. If you still think it should be deleted, moved or merged, feel free to list it at WP:CFD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFDS
I noticed you moved my proposals on WP:CFDS for the renaming of Category:Nuclear aircraft and Category:Steam aircraft to the "objected-to, take to cfd" section. I'm curious as to why, as there were in fact no objections, merely a comment regarding 'Steam aircraft', and no comments at all with regards to 'Nuclear aircraft'? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! :) - The Bushranger (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see, thanks. Well, the nuclear one's still good though, right? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do I need to move it back to the top section, or just wait now then? I haven't previously used CFDS. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange edit
What is this? Some problem with AWB? PL290 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Morocco

 * Hello,
 * I'm not trying to vandalize the article, but, as you can easily see, is reverting all the contributions that don't match his POV . Even, he already was blocked because of his accusations of vandalism to anyone who doesn't share his POV.
 * There was a consensus, the article was written and everything was fine, but he decided that everybody was wrong.
 * This user is blocked on the Spanish and French WP, and his contributions are always reverted in these two sections, because of extreme POV and repeated accusations.
 * He already added non-sourced maps, that were removed after a few hours example; he replaced the maps that were posted on the French, Spanish, Dutch, Afrikaans and Italian sections by his original non-linked non-referenced maps ; he created hoax articles ; and he used random IPs without signing in to modify some articles.
 * Sorry for the edit war, I already asked to pu a protection on the article History of Morocco then it will not happen again.
 * I hope that will stop his reverting of any information that doesn't satisfy him.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I will not revert his edits again
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi!, I put I all source of Information, acording to Wikipedia the information will be thrue. I tried to Stop Omar-Toons, but he always delate my contributions without rights only becouse he understand the new Moroccan history and nor the moroccan history pre-1944.Bokpasa 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to give you the link to the previous discussions
 * As you can see, we have a case of two kinds of contributors:
 * 1/The one who gives his POV according to original research:
 * 2/All the other people (including an admin, )
 * Everything is explained... I think!
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected
Hi Justin. I noticed this section when I was here earlier today. I took one look at the history for History of Morocco and requested temporary full page protection which was granted a few hours ago. Hopefully, that gives the editors time to discuss things a little more rationally. OTOH, I note that they both came perilously close to violating 3RR on occasion, so we might yet need to keep an eye out. Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Demos and notability
I think the issue of whether an album or song is a "demo" or not (how ever you define that word) is a red-herring. The real question is to ask whether or not they pass WP:SIGCOV and, to be perfectly frank, most of the albums you have nominated fail that test by a long margin. Perhaps you should contextualise your future nominations by making it clear that these albums and songs must pass SIGCOV if they are to have an independent article? That approach might just help to avoid some editors' questioning of your motives --Jubilee♫ clipman 05:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK: "a significant majority" of those you nominated failed SIGCOV, not merely "most". I'm still mulling over the other points you made. Springsteen's Nebraska (one of my favourite albums, BTW) is notable, however, and nobody would assume that it isn't. Part of the problem, perhaps, stems not from the status of demos etc but from this statement: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." It implies to far too many editors that all albums by all notable musicians or ensembles are automatically notable, which is patently not true. Anyway it only says "...may have sufficient notability...". That whole section in WP:MUSIC really needs a huge overhaul, IMO, as it so loosely worded that it can be used to support almost any argument you like to put forward: "But 'Most songs do not rise to notability' so we should delete most of the articles about the Beatle's songs: see WP:NALBUMS". Well, that argument is easily countered, I guess, but other possiblitities might come to mind as I think this through more. Thoughts? Am I off on a weird tangent here? It wouldn't be the first time! --Jubilee♫ clipman 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, WPMUSIC is a mess! And yes: my Beatles example is terrible...  Your Talking Heads example is pretty good though.  I am actually caught up in the MoS restructure at the moment and suspect eyes will fall on the other guidelines as a result of that.  I have already asked questions over at WT:MUSIC in fact, quite recently.  BTW, I recast my vote over at Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos: your self-proclaimed nemesis seems to have proven that the album passes SIGCOV.  Only by a fraction but still enough to make me think the album is probably reviewed in other places yet to be discovered (MOJO? Kerrang!?)  And yes (on that other matter): I hope the tfpp gets those two editors talking rather than warring  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

century categories
Thanks for helping out with the cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy
Per your most recent message on his sock's talk page at the time of this post, I believe you are unaware of the CU confirmation. Same IP, same computer. There is no question that this user is Radiopathy. Have you read the sock case?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Adminisitrator's noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the entry here. Amsaim (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have commented --Jubilee♫ clipman 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarify... - I meant Amsaim's action was "an entirely over-the-top and near-disruptive action". Regarding your actions: 42 deleted after discussion, 12 or so after being listed for deletion for week without objection...  seems pretty reasonable now you put it that way  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting those links: they place the whole "incident" in context. I'd leave the ANI discussion to the admins now, BTW: it looks realy bad if the two disputants are disputing at the place where disputes are supposed to be investigated... --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. you can find the link here. Amsaim (talk)

Requesting move of MDFMK (EP) → MDFMK (single)
I thought you'd want to participate in this conversation. Go here to join the discussion. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue Is the Colour (Chelsea football club song)
Surely "Chelsea Football Club" should actually be in capitals as it is a name? I'll leave it for you to review your move. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) PS AS indeed Go for It (Coventry City F.C. song) is, although I wonder whether F.C. should be spelt out. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the admonishment! If I knew how to get a bot to take the rubbish out and throw it in an archive I would! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be at simply Blue Is the Colour (song) since there's no other song with this title? Station1 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. You seem to be involved in an edit war in relation to The Roxx Regime Demos, where consensus appears to be that the recording is a compilation of demo's made by a previous incarnation of the band. I note that an AfD you brought on the basis that demo recordings are not notable was rejected on the basis that the tracks were available on an official record company release and were reviewed by reliable sources as such. To then repeatedly change the info box to indicate the tracks were demo's rather than an compilation album release is edit warring against consensus. I have enacted a longer than usual sanction because it was with issues relating to edit warring that you have previously been blocked, although it has been some considerable time since the last instance (and you have been editing long enough to be able to understand policy). I am determined that you should not return to those behaviours, and am thus emphasising the consequences of you doing so by the length of this block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow That's disappointing for multiple reasons—the fact that it took a majority of the block to time to get a review (even after asking for assistance on the unblock channel of IRC) and that it stayed in effect after all. That's totally ridiculous. When I return, I will revert the page to how it was prior to the AfD and ask for protection/mediation/etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert. There has been a great deal of effort and discussion in your absence. The consensus so far is that it's a compilation of demos, not a demo itself. We'd be pleased to discuss it with you and whoever you would like to include in the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay Where is this consensus for Category:Compilation albums (which I added)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is ongoing discussion about both that cat and the demo cat: click the link in Walter's post and join in. We'd be pleased to hear your views  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings... and enjoy your Wikibreak
Greetings Koavf - sorry to see you've been blocked. I've been following the excellent work you've been doing here at Wikipedia and wish there were something I could do to help out, but can't think of anything. Given the tolerance often shown to repeat vandals by well-meaning admins, I realise this 48hr block must be hard to swallow, but try to look on the bright side and take it as a well-earned rest and a Wikibreak that will give you time to catch up on some sleep, grab a bite to eat and/or realise that Life exists beyond Wikipedia. Look forward to seeing you back in action once the block is up. Don't let 'em get you down! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I look forward to working with you again at TFD when you return. Best regards. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, am sorry to hear about the block and agree with above sentiments. I suggest you WP:CHILL in the mean time and WP:KEEPCOOL when you return...  Might help avoid future blocks.    BTW, your unblock request links to the same AN/I twice (the one I commented at) instead of two different AN/I's.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks For the support as well as the link SNAFU. This is positively outrageous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Not sue what happened but things have been tense in more than one corner of the wikipedia of late. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for deletion of Template:MCOTWprev
Thank you for informing me. I'm a bit sorry to see them go — I remember the adventure when I first organized the Medicine Collaboration of the Week! But it looks like they're no longer needed. I appreciate the notice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Early Beatles
Justin, per your edit here, all Capitol Beatles albums through Yesterday... and Today are technically compilations; however, I don't think that catagorising them as such is either necessary or correct, especially since you're removing category "The Beatles albums".  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My talk page. Your talk page.
Please see No personal attacks before threatening me again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)