User talk:Koavf/Archive020

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:Jews is correct
Hi Koav: Kindly refrain from making the correctly-named Category:Jews into your totally arbitrary wishy-washy Category:Jewish people. The term "Jews" is not offensive and Jews ARE Jewish "people" -- what else could "Jews" mean? You are also flouting the correct English proper noun and 100% correct translation for the Hebrew word and proper noun for the word Jews = יְהוּדִים Yehudim (singular: Yehudi) and the Yiddish word for Jews = Yidden יידן (singular: Yid). And I believe that in Arabic Jews are called "Yahud" and no doubt in all languages Jews are called Jews and not Jewish "people" to appease some silly sensitivities of a minority of somewhere who don't like the word "Jew/s" for some irrational reason that defies logic, history, facts, reality, truth and much more. Sure, at times Jews or things connected with them are described in adjectival terms as being "Jewish" meaning "of the Jews" or "about the Jews" or "concerning the Jews" but the main subject is always "Jew/s". The usage of the term or phrase "Jewish" this-and-that is sometimes helpful and sometimes just wasteful circumlocution, but the correct name for the Jews is the Jews! Indeed in the bulk of the sub-categories in Category:Jews the term "Jews" predominates and correctly so. It would also seriously mess up the fact that Category:Jews is the first half of the key parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. This system of categorization has worked excellently since comprehensive categorization was introduced about six years ago on Wikipedia and it makes no sense for you to come along and mess it up because of you don't like it. Please refrain from making such sweeping changes in the future. Thank you most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish people
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish people. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi! Why did you vandalist my contribution?.Bokpasa 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking
What makes you think that a Wikiproject can change the existing manual of style which is a Wikipedia wide guideline as opposed to simply a Wikiproject guideline. --JD554 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Albums by artist categorization
Hi there Koavf, I'm notifying you a discussion taking place over at WT:ALBUMS regarding the Albums by artist categorization, as well as Albums by genre and nationality. As you have created quite a number of these categories, especially the container categories, I thought you might be interested. I would really appreciate comments, as I would like to get this proposal off the ground. Regards. — ξ xplicit  19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks You are correct that I have created a number of album categories (possibly a majority of them at this point, including over a dozen today) and I have an interest in this categorization scheme, but I'm not sure if I have anything to add to the discussion. Simply put, I think you're on the right track about (e.g.) Category:American albums being tricky. Where these recorded by American artists, recorded in America, or released to the American audience? Tough to say. It seems like Category:Albums by American musicians might be desirable (and the only one of those three options that is appropriate for categorization), but I don't know that I have more to add than that. Thanks again for the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_8. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I became aware when I saw the nomination of, as this category one of the many I have in mind to take to CfD after the discussion (a hypothetical nomination can be found in subpage here). I'm not sure about the Albums by Fooian musicians change, though; that would add complications to my already complicated proposal. Though this can be brought up afterward. — ξ xplicit  19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Want your input re: BLP articles
Hey Justin, I've never ever ventured into the Community Portal, because I find it confusing (which is probably a good topic to bring up there, but I wouldn't know how, etc. -chasing my own tail). Thus, a couple things. First, do you have any idea as to why some Talk pages for biographies, for example, include more than one place involved? Example: a blues performer is born in say, Mississippi, but as a kid he moves to Chicago, Illinois. Why then, would we find the talk page tagged with Wikiproject Mississippi, Wikiproject Illinois, Wikiproject Chicago, and, (God forbid) Wikiproject Guitar, Wikiproject Roots Music, and Wikiproject Biography? I'm fine with Bio, Guitar, Roots, and wherever the guy lived his entire adult life, but feel there should just be one-- cause I really don't see anybody checking on all those additional States, cities, and whatnot when it comes time for review for GA, you know? Half the time they're tagged as auto, and someone just switches them to B status at the last minute. WTH? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit on a Category:Canadian record labels
I'm doing maintenance on the Category:Canadian music tree. In the case of Category:Canadian record labels I am trying to put all Canadian record labels under this category (regardless of it's name/genre etc). I'm thinking of a new subcat for the genres linked to Category:Canadian record labels. This new subcat will hold Canadian idie record labels, hip-hop, country, etc... Please reply to my talk... Argolin (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members
Hello! I would just like to let you know that I have created the List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members article. As you can probably see, I am not the best editor on Wikipedia, and the article does need a lot of work and sources that need to be cited. I would appreciate it if you would be willing to contribute to this list, because I know that you were eager to get the messy members section off the actual article. Thank you! WereWolf (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I honestly appreciate it; this article can use all the help it can get! WereWolf (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, I notice you're on a categorization run today. Good work overall, but I wanted to point out a few inconsistencies: It looks like you've been categorizing a number of articles as live albums when they actually aren't live albums. For example, you categorized all of the Warped Tour compilations as live albums, when only one of them (World Warped III Live) consists of live tracks; the other 12 have only 2 or 3 live tracks at most, out of ~50 tracks per album (and even III is still a compilation album, as its mostly compiled from the respective bands' live albums). Same with Rarities and B-Sides (The Smashing Pumpkins album)...only 15 live tracks out of 114 on the release. Another example is Peel Sessions (Hot Snakes EP): not only was it recorded in a studio, but it's not even an album, it's an EP. I notice you've marked many Peel Sessions releases as live albums, which raises an interesting question: these are recorded in a studio, though they're done in a "live-off-the-floor" manner...does that make them studio releases or live? I tend to think studio, since they're recorded in a professional studio rather than at a live performance (I can think of other "live-off-the-floor" style studio albums, such as How to Ruin Everything). Anyway, it seems to me that you're categorizing any release that has a live track on it as a live album, and I think that's incorrect. Some of these releases (like the Warped Tour comps) consist almost entirely of studio material. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation; it all sounds reasonable. The Warped Tour comps are the ones that raised the red flag for me, as they are definitely compilations of studio material (excepting Vol. 3 and a few live tracks here & there). I went through all of them a while back and noted in the tracklists which albums/EPs the tracks came from. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dick's Picks
Greetings, Koavf. I noticed that you're adding Category:Box set albums to the Dick's Picks albums, however, they are live albums and not box sets. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 03:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure There is nothing mutually-exclusive about box sets and live albums. That having been said, it appears that the article on box sets--for all that's worth--says that box sets are compilations, rather than material recorded in one fell swoop. Consequently, since these Dick's Picks albums were all from one concert or related group of recordings, I believe you are correct that these are not box sets. If you want to remove the categories, please do. Otherwise, post here and I'll do it myself. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that box sets and live albums are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, if you'd remove remove the box set albums cat from the Dick's Picks articles, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.  — Mudwater (Talk) 03:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Categorization
What is with your thousands of edits recently that result in what is in my opinion over-categorization of albums? Is there some new discussion/consensus somewhere about now having to put certain album in year type of album album categorization? Because if there is I would like to see it and discuss it because these categorizations seem unnecessary. Or is this simply something you decided by yourself? Aspects (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is just your own efforts to be bold and make this changes that I think of overcategorization, I am going to bring up a discussion on Wikiproject Albums and I would advise that you cease these categorizations until there is a consensus there. In the future if you are going to be making thousands of edits, I would hope that you would either have the backing of plicies, guidelines or wikiprojects before making these edits to show there has been some form of consensus for making such a large number of edits. Aspects (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I'd be happy to respond when you post to WT:ALBUM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you did not already head my advice, since concerns were brought up to you about these edits per WP:BRD, you should be discussing them instead of continuing on with them. Aspects (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right I did stop. I just finished the tabs I had open in Firefox. Please post to WT:ALBUM if you so desire. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops The above only applies to your second message. You are correct that I made several edits after your first message. I'm waiting to discuss now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

CGNDB
I thought you might be interested in a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)

Template:Riingo Banerjee Films
I have removed your Templates for Deletion tag from Riingo Banerjee Films, because you didn't make a nomination for it at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 18. If you still want it deleted, feel free to renominate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Same with Raj Chakraborty Films. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and Noboru Tanaka. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Noboru Tanaka
Koavf, you do remember the other dozen or so nominations, not one of which succeeded? If you want more articles on the template, all you have to do is ask. Tanaka is a major, prolific director, and I'll be happy to start a few more film articles for him. However doing it under the threat of unnecessary deletion of the template, after you've seen so many like this fail, borders on disruption. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Promo 2007
A tag has been placed on Promo 2007 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. No response needed, this is just FYI since you AFD'd it. CSD should handle it, though. UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your AfD nomination of Laws of Illusion
Hi, I note you were the nominator in the recent AfD on Laws of Illusion, and in the original when it was called The Laws of Illusion. While there's no policy stopping you bringing the same article to AfD twice, it would have been appropriate to (a) draw commentors' attention to the previous AfD, which closed as "Keep", and (b) made an argument as to why the result in the previous AfD should now be overturned. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A Sticky, but Sweet matter!
I encourage you to participate in this discussion and vote HERE! Thanks. Reidlos (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your work
Hello. I've noticed your work for quite a while; especially with your changes to the template in song articles. I had added quite a few music samples to song articles (and will keep working in that area), but had added the without the right "type" value. So that's what I wanted to ask you about, because I'm not sure how to tell if the item is a song or a single. How can I tell which type a particular song is?

I was also adding those templates "inline" as opposed to placing them with their elements stacked vertically like the rest of the larger template. But again, I noticed your changes and started putting them stacked vertically. It does make more sense to have all the elements uniform.

I have finally stopped by to ask about these things because I've been doing music related stuff for a few months and I wanted to get a little more familiar with it. I don't see any end to the work :) See ya. 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Solving an ugly Cfm thing
✅ Hi, thank you for cleaning my Cfm template. Really, didn't have attention-capacity time left to research the first outcome. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to come back on this: the ugly (big bold block in section etc.) has gone OK. But the general appearance doesn't seen according to the page's pattern. i.e.: the source/target cat's are not linked as in other nominations on the page, especially section titles. One more look& edit please, and promised: no more. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Use care when adding categories
I noticed in this edit that you added a category which does not exist. Make sure you're adding categories correctly. Thanks. Torchiest talk/contribs 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming albums
Hi, I see that you are doing much good work renaming albums as singles. However, if you want the redirect deleted it is important that you correct all incoming links, first. It would not be good practice to delete redirects with such incoming links since that would leave red links in other pages. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Soundtracks by artist nationality or Soundtrack album by artist nationality
Koavf, Can you please see your renaming for Soundtracks by artist nationality? I have changed the cfd template in the cat to Soundtrack albums by Canadian artists. I've updated the entry at the CfD only for my addition. It would be a shame if this rename did not happen. Am I supposed to rename the others? I don't know! I'll leave it with you. BTW Good work. Argolin (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please come back to my page? I have questions for you related to your post:  Soundtrack/albums.  Argolin (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Koavf, Sorry about that, there aren't three parents. I din't realise the two parents of film soundtracks is Soundtracks and Soundtrack albums.  What a confusing part of the category tree we have here.  I now think that my renaming nomimination is not really part of this.  It is a different part of the category tree.  What am I to do now?  Back to my page... Argolin (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Koaf, the Category:Canadian film soundtracks is a different part of the tree Category:Film soundtracks by nationality. I think there are parts of the tree missing.  We don't have a category Canadian soundtracks.  I think tacking my rename on to yours is wrong.  Talk on mine.  Argolin (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Koaf. I think I'm done.  I won't be posting anything further regarding either two proposals.  I am resolved to limit my exposure to the nastiness that goes on at the CfD.  Argolin (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG, sorry. I was surprised that the album discussion was entirely civil.  The CfD is not a happy place for me.  But I've realised I have to post a Speedy rename for Category:Canadian Record labels by parent.  I was going to ask you about the Category:Canadian record labels.  Do you have time?

Demo AfDs
I think I've mentioned this to you before, but when you're nominating demos for deletion, could you use the expanded rationale "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and my good faith searches have failed to uncover any reason to treat this demo differently." As I'm sure you're aware ,it's incumbent on an editor nominating an article for deletion to perform these searches; evidence of them not being done (especially in an editor nominating large numbers of articles) can be reason to treat the nomination as performed in bad faith. Therefore, as you're doing a lot of thsee, it would be great from a process perspective if you could formally tick off the "good faith searches" box in this way. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of the SADR
I'm having a dispute with some other users because of the adding of referenced general delegations to that page, wich is totally unfair compared to their attitude to other articles, like the Palestine or the Taiwan ones. You can see the discussion here and the request on me. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Music genre by subgenre categories
I don't have a strong feeling on how these should be categorized, but I do think they should be consistent, so I was wondering what you think might be the best way of naming these. Here are the categories in question (there may be others):
 * Category:Rock songs by subgenre
 * Category:Dance music by sub-genre
 * Category:Rock albums by genre
 * Category:Pop albums by genre
 * Category:Heavy metal albums by genre
 * Category:Alternative rock albums by genre

The dance music category should be changed regardless because of the hyphen (is that speedy-able?). I'll be glad to put these up for CFR based on your input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lays from Afar
Indeed, "from" should not be capitalized. Thanks for the correction! I somehow always thought prepositions of four letters and up were capitalized. zubrowka 74 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Music to Raise the Dead 1972–1998
It's not a compilation album. It's a retrospective. Feel free to add the cat if one exists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit - Template:Infobox Bibliography
Long and the short of it - idiot proofing myself.

There is a similar complementary template within the Comics Project - Infobox comics creator biblio. I added the switch last August - - to allow for stacking.

One of the places where the flag is in use just pointed out that I'm not consistent in spelling "supress" ( and I just realized that it's wrong on the template (sigh)). So... I decided to add a "safety net" of a few simpler options.

Taking a second look - I should have just knocked it down to "none" and changed the few instances in use.

- J Greb (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Alan Grant bibliography for an example.
 * The switch removes what would be a redudndant "Alan Grant bibliography" between the two boxes.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Live albums are not compilation albums
You seem to think live albums are compilation albums, such as in this edit. I don't think that matches up with the commonly accepted use of these terms. Compilation albums refer to repackagings of previously released recorded works. Live albums are almost always newly released recorded works (that is, the live recording is newly released, even if many of the songs have previously been released in studio recordings). I don't see any value to the reader in conflating these two different kinds of things. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By your definition, the studio album Tattoo You would also be a compilation album, which would be really counter-intuitive. And note that while recorded over a period of years, Live/1975-1985 is selected and sequenced to present a coherent thematic narrative of Springsteen's work; it's not just a haphazard collection of tracks.  So I still disagree with what you're doing.  But I resolved a while ago not to get caught up in any more category drama, so I'll let this one pass and let others worry about it....  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Top of the Pops
Please note that the Top of the Pops album series are studio albums, not compilations. Please understand the nature of the albums. I've reverted your edits. The end of year sets are indeed compilations, but albums like Top of the Pops, Volume 18 are not. Thank you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy (album) AfD
Hi Justin. I know you do a lot of music-related AfDs, the majority of which are good, but once again can I urge you to take the time to make a full explanation for each article of why you're nominating it? Your terse nomination explanation at this AfD has everyone baffled. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Motörhead compilation albums
Because Motörhead's compilation albums are already categorized under Category:Compilation albums by British artists there is no need to double categorize under Category:Compilation albums by artist as well. Under WP:ALBUMS, it only states that the artist's albums be placed in Category:Albums by artist and a genre category. In this case, by being under Category:Motörhead albums, it is already in the top level Category:Albums by artist. Until it is written under WP:ALBUMS that all artist compilation albums should be under compilation albums by artist, it is simply overcategorization. I don't see a need to follow the same practice for this method of subcategorization until the Album Project page makes this the standard. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true, but that is just the overarching issue I have with this overcategorization set up that you have expanded upon so diligently. As it is set up, however, it really does only need to be under one compilation albums category, Category:New Wave of British heavy metal compilation albums, as that puts it under Category:Albums by British artists (by nationality), Category:New Wave of British heavy metal albums (by genre), and Category:Compilation albums (by type). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about placing Category:New Wave of British heavy metal compilation albums under Category:Compilation albums by British artists? All New Wave of British heavy metal artists are British, aren't they? By definition, it seems to be a genre that excludes other nationalities.


 * In general, still, I don't see why we need to repeat the method of all artist's albums cats (Category:Albums by artist) with artist's albums cats by type (Category:Live albums by artist) if they are already more deeply subcategorized as live albums (e.g. Category:Live albums by American artists, Category:Live rock albums). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Template
Thanks It appears by my count that there are roughly 6,000 good articles that lack this template, so I decided to pitch in with WP:AWB. I'd like to suggest it to you, because I think it will be faster than editing by hand. I've simply alphabetized every article within Category:Wikipedia good articles and its subcategories and started at Z. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for informing me. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Canadian record labels
Koavf, I'm seeking your advice on Category:Canadian record labels. One problem is that when I go to the Aussies, UK, or New Zealand portals to see their category trees, I'm often no wiser for it. Since you offered to help, please spend a few minutes exploring the above cat (and of course parents & subs). I have only done letters A-B and any unassessed articles. If there's someting I'm missing or you don't agree with, I'd rather know now and continue on properly. Fianlly, this is really an issue for the Record Label task force. However, it appears to be dead/inactive. If you don't mind, reply on mine and keep the discussion there. Argolin (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Come back! Argolin (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Back again...Argolin (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:396 brummels-wb-promo-3.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:396 brummels-wb-promo-3.gif. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Abbey Road Category
Would you like help tagging? Are you working from a list that we could split up? Wes! &#149; Tc 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

response
I have responded on Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 8 --Enterinlast (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

two other categories
Should Category:Roman era Christian thinkers and Category:Roman era anti-Christian thinkers also be deleted then? --Enterinlast (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the two other categories
I added them to Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 8. Feel free to contribute to the categories for discussion. --Enterinlast (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Modern Family season episode list
Do you have any plans for this? It seems orphaned and redundant to Infobox television episode/season list. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cat sorting
Call it a habit. A long time ago, an editor suggested to me that using the space had the disadvantage of looking like a mistake to some newer editors, so the space is often deleted as a "typo". The same problem doesn't seem to exist if you use an asterisk. I have noticed a difference, so just routinely use the asterisk now. I admit that it does look slightly better than the space, which creates a weird "floating out there" look to the things that apply to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Illinois
Thanks for the heads up! Yeah, I haven't been finding too much to expand upon there as of late. I'll probably add a little bit more, but my enthusiasm for the article has definitely waned. I'll definitely give it one more good push before the site goes under.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good articles
Can you please place the good article template before DEFAULTSORT, categories and interwikis? I changed the manual to make it clearer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure we put these templates before interwikis. If I am mistaken about the categories please correct me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message in WP:BOTREQ. There was a discussion on "good article" there. I am not quite sure on the right placement. I maybe am mistaken. If you want to ask for a bot, here is your chance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Inserting before (or after) a bunch of things. The best way to do this is with the advanced search and replace. Rule 1 is insert before DEFAUTLSORT, Rule 2 before Cats, Rule 3 before GA interwikis,  etc... rule N is add to the very end of the article. This would of course add multiple copies! But there is a skip if contains, so setting that to should do the trick. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Loggerhead sea turtle
For some reason you listed our article as GA when it is FA. Just thought I'd alert you. --TimHAllstr (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Super speedy deletion
Hi Koavf— SDPatrolBot II just left a message on my talk page saying that "the page [I] created on August 10 2007, Pink Guillotine, has been marked for speedy deletion." I don't have any complaints about the deletion—the Sinister Quarter broke up without achieving fame outside of Wisconsin and in close to three years nobody else cared enough to improve the page. I will note that the page indicates that the article was deleted by User:Gogo_Dodo a bit over 2 hours before the Bot left the message, which I think could easily be a very frustrating situation to anyone who actually did disagree with the decision. I'm not sure if there's a timezone difference at work here or what happened, but I just want to recommend that bot's message be updated to include something about what to do if you don't get the opportunity to add that hangon tag. Cheers, JamesLucas (" " / +) 01:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Justin— I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think the Bot message should include what you just wrote on my page—that there is an option of a review. Currently the Bot message is worded as if it's a warning of impending deletion (encouraging the user to take action before the deletion), but in my case the deletion had already occurred by the time the message was left.  I think it would be pretty easy for what I just experienced to make someone who isn't familiar with Speedy Deletions to feel very disempowered, which a bad way to feel on Wikipedia.  Hopefully that makes sense?  JamesLucas (" " / +) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Hello Koavf, please take a look at this band page: Arashk , this band is unsigned and self-produced, good for them but I think it doesn’t meet WP:Music , the article also based on the fact that one of the band members was the schoolmate of another notable artist! --Spada2 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: To Hell 'n' Back
Hello Koavf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of To Hell 'n' Back, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has a review on a notable site and was released on a notable label (that the band has no article is only one requirement for A9). Thank you.  So Why  22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi again, I'm working on an article about a band and during my research I found somthing like these bands Mavara, Reza Yazdani  , Virtual Existence, I think they have the notability problem too. --Spada2 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Alice (demo)
It's no biggie. I knew it was a longshot. You may go ahead and delete it. Shaneymike (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Hi, thanks, I'm learning more to creat good articles, plz take a look at this band The Yellow Dogs they did one sountrack for a movie does that make them notable? please also take look at these bands with seroius notabilty problems Sorg Innkallelse, Tarantist , Sasy Mankan,  Thanks --Spada2   (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem
Hi, thank you, I took care of those pages. hope this is the last one. This article Ahoora have some problems: It seems like a job for a well experienced editor, please take care of this one, once again thanks. --Spada2 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of references are not reliable for some important parts like [6] or the link doesn’t work [2]
 * the article in some parts is like an advertisement for the band like the way the author used some parts of album reviews, it remind me the stickers on the cds , and some other parts not neutral so I feel the problems are {advert } and {unencyclopedic }
 * the band has notability problem too, the label real2can is not a known label, they just help unsigned bands to sell cds its not a record label, take a look at Cdbaby.com and you will see the ahoora seltitled album is on a CD-R! they have some review but some of them are not notable, like you said there are lots of band but not all of them deserve articles in a general-interest encyclopedia.

CSD Declined - Old York
Hi! Just to let you know that I declined Old York for speedy deletion under A9. The criteria states that "... an article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted." Whilst there was no indication of notability in the article, the band article (Motel Motel) does exist. I would recommend for this article either improving it or transferring what information there is to the band page and redirecting there. Stephen! Coming... 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks
Hi, I found this article: Mohammad Pazhutan and now its nominated for deletion, I thought it was good but when I searched it found many serious problems, please join the deletion disscution. At last I want to thank you again cause by sharing these with you I learnt a lot, thanks --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)