User talk:Koavf/Archive041

Duplication of categories
You were the one who tried to make Category:American novelists a container category, and even though that was oveturned because of the fact that List of American novelsits for now belongs there, no one has directly challenged the general sentiment. However some editors have tried special pleading for a few specific cases, normally through presenting no cohenent arguments and special overturnings. The first 10 articles in the category are already in by century sub-cats, but have all been returned multiple times without any real justification against the diffusion, sometimes by people who have made no arguments against the by century categories. I am afraid to try again for fear of getting into an edit war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Frustration I know, it's awful. If you want to have a discussion in a centralized place, let me know. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I keep telling people to nominate categories for deletion, but the person who does most of this actually says they think the by century categories should exist. So I really don't know.  There is talk of an RfC on the American novelists category talk page, but I really do not see an RfC as the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Places associated with apartheid
Category:Places associated with apartheid, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

mass nominations should be grouped together is one
Since you are making the same copy and paste arguments for dozens/hundreds of articles, just list them altogether, so its easier to respond to. And all Wikipedia articles for a television episode have screenshots. Please don't go around individually nominated ten thousand articles. You understand more about the episode when you see what the characters and scenery and whatnot look like.  D r e a m Focus  01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mass noms If you do that, then you have to untangle the discussions about the merits of each individual fair use rationale, and it is definitely not true that all article on Wikipedia about television episodes have screenshots. See WP:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, e.g. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Do to lack of people noticing and participating, you have managed to mass delete massive numbers of images over a period of time.  Even when people do show up and say keep, the administrator might rule in your favor anyway, depending on their personal bias.  If all articles are going to have their images deleted from them, then this should be discussed at the village pump. Get more feed back.   D r e a m Focus  01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have nothing else to do.  No matter, over time most, I suspect will just have new images upladed by another editor.   Enjoy padding your edit count Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop If you have nothing constructive to say, then say nothing. What is the point of this? Do you think I'm going to change my behavior based on this post? Do you have anything substantive to say about these invalid non-free media rationales? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect your good faith in nominating this large batch of Star Trek images for deletion per WP:NFCC, but I agree with Dream Focus that something like this needs to be reviewed via a wider community discussion before anyone takes any action on these proposed deletions. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Okay But I don't understand this at all: NFCC is clear and has been stable for the nine years that I've been here, plus the onus is on the uploader. Why is there a need for centralized discussion when it's patently clear that many of these files (if not all of them) fail with NFURs? What is the venue that you propose? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that both the nomination of these images and the fact that you purposely chose not to group them as a mass nomination are a violation of WP:POINT. My advice would have been to nominate one image, see its end result, then go from there. – Dream out loud (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FURs Each fair use nomination needs to rest on its own merits, so there is no way that I can see group nominating them. This isn't like CFD. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all about the efficiency of the deletion process. How will Justin get his work done if other people question them? Damnit, these articles won't delete themselves, you know! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks? What is your point, Andy? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that I agree that quite a few of the episode images are not going to meet the FUR and can be deleted. However, you did run through the ones where they aren't placed for illustrative purposes. Basically any of them that are Good Articles and have been promoted since November last year will have been worked on by me, and I either updated the image purpose (and in some cases changed the image) or simply removed it in each case if no image was required to further the understanding of the reader. Essentially I included fair use images on the basis that if something is described in the text of the article but is more easily understood by the use of an image then it was suitable to be used. This obviously doesn't happen in most cases. The problem is with the Star Trek episode articles is that the vast, vast majority of them are simply plot descriptions right now, and so cannot possibly meet that requirement. Also some follow a certain pattern - i.e. if there is an image of one or more main characters not doing anything particularly unusual then it'll never meet a FUR. I wouldn't oppose deleting all images from the episode articles where they don't have any obvious use, even if the article is simply a plot and not much else - because the images are easy enough to replace due to online resources and so when someone eventually expands the article they can always add one back under an appropriate FUR if required (one that isn't based on illustration). Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Context I did, in fact, take a look at the context of these images and decided to not nominate some that displayed something genuinely unique. On the other hand, there are instances (e.g. File:In_a_Mirror,_Darkly_(ENT_episode)_Part_I.jpg) where free equivalents are in the article displaying the same thing as the non-free media. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image deletions

 * Thanks for flooding my talk page with fifty image deletion notices - I think ONE message probably could have done the trick. Likewise, when you flood my talk page you also flood my email with stupid alerts from Wikipedia telling EACH TIME you do it. For the record, I don't care about images I uploaded that you feel you need to purge from Wikipedia for whatever reason, so you can quit spamming my talk page. Have fun deleting things. Cyberia23 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay If you don't want me to post to your talk, that's fine but it's hardly spam. If you want to know why the images should be deleted, you can read my rationale and compare it to the standards at WP:NFCC. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Howdy Koavf. With regards to the comment above about putting a lot of deletion notices on one talk page, Fdw-multi could be used instead. According to the documentation for Twinkle, the notify option can be turned off. Then you could just notify the editor at the end with the combined template. Just a thought. If you already knew all of this was a possible option, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Your comments are the only ones that are nice and helpful here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rockfang (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I need your help
O.K. You should see what Rkitko decided to do!: He decided to harass me here. After what I warned him here. And he opened a discussion about my behavior without my knowledge here. Can you talk to him about this, because I just can't discuss it with a guy who hates me!--Mishae (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin I suggest you use WP:AN. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it go under abuse?--Mishae (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure That's probably the most accurate. You should only go there if you've followed the guidelines on that page (e.g. posting directly to the user's talk, just ignoring the situation to see if it goes away, etc.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Look on the bottom. Apparently I made a mistake. Can you help me with filing of abuse form? Many thanks--Mishae (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind he removed my warning and called it nonsense, look at his View history on his talk page. Now what?--Mishae (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let It Be I suggest letting sleeping dogs lie. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if he will come to my talkpage again complaining about condensed taxoboxes especially if its the article that I wrote, then that dog should die. Guess I will receive a block just by saying this on your talkpage? Another thing: I decided to remove his nonsense from my talkpage :)--Mishae (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Joanne Gair FURs.
I have reverted your unexplained deletions. Please leave comments at Talk:Joanne Gair regarding FUR complaints. I will address them.

2006 North Korea Flooding talk page redirect
Why? Shall I go on?
 * 1) Because that talk page, as it was an as you restored it to, is broken....the page is in "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding", which is why I noticed it
 * 2) Because a 'talk page' for a redirect is pointless anyhow...about the only way you would land on it is by noticing that it is causing an error.
 * 3) Because I come across them (and change them to redirects) on a regular basis, simply because an admin suggested it as a 'more convenient' way to fix the problem than tagging them for G8 speedy delete (as it doesn't require admin action)
 * 4) Because there are /thousands/ of pointless orphan talk pages like this spamming the hell out of 'cleanup' categories (I've seen them be a third of the category)
 * 5) Because you're specifically /not/ supposed to create Talk pages for 'non-article' pages (redirects, categories) just to hold WikiProject banners, and 'effectively' doing the same thing in 'reverse' with a page move is just as silly.

By the way, it is specifically stated in WP:TALK: "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use."

FWIW, a revert with a summary of "Why" is inappropriate, especially using an automated tool. You should have a /reason/ for edits with Twinkle, not just 'randomly preserving the status quo' for no actual reason. To quote ABUSE "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

Glancing at your edit history, I see that you /habitually/ create these pointless talk pages with AWB, and don't even bother to fill out the WikiProject banners properly. The only thing this accomplishes is to spam the database with pointless crap, and spam the ALREADY MASSIVELY BACKLOGGED 'unassessed articles' categories with useless cruft.

STOP DOING THIS. PLEASE. It is completely unhelpful. Revent (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As a side note (I just noticed this) if you bothered to read the documentation for the project banners, you would know that they are only to be placed on ARTICLE TALK PAGES, not talk pages for categories. You are really giving the impression (from your edit history, userpage, and what's on this talk page) of (IMO) disrupting wikipedia with automated editing tools in an attempt to pad your edit count. Revent (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk pages First off I think you misunderstand WP:TALK. I created the talk page initially as I created the article: I didn't make a talk page to a page that didn't otherwise exist.
 * Why do you think that the  class is pointless?
 * Which project banners were not filled out correctly?
 * Which project banners specify that they aren't to be placed on categories? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The redirect class is not pointless...creating a talk page just to hold wikiproject banners (and nothing else) is pointless, and against policy. I see from your edit history where you've literally created over 500 Template talk pages containing nothing but a Wikiproject template in just two days, literally thousands of Category Talk templates as well, all of which have NOTHING on them but a Wikiproject template....which is pointless. It's just spamming the database with useless crap. "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use." (directly from WP:TALK) is pretty easy to understand....don't create tens of thousands is even easier.
 * The 'broken' template I was talking about was, literally, the only one on the talk page, and as I said, the talk page was in the "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding" category.
 * The /specific/ thing that it incredibly irritating is that when you create talk pages for redirects you are spamming the fuck out of the 'unassessed articles' categories, because you aren't filling out the templates. This /vastly/ increases the pain in the ass level of trying to work on that backlog, as EVERY SINGLE ONE of those redirect talk pages is 'categorized' wrong. From what I've seen, I'd estimate this applies to about a third of the 150,000+ unassessed biographies.
 * Looking at just your recent edits, within the last hour you redirected the Brass Tactics article, immediately created a talk page for the redirect to only hold wikiproject banners, and (of course) broke the "WikiProject Alternative music" banner with an invalid parameter (the class=redirect).
 * And yes, I have seen the edits where you nominated a page for deletion, and then IMMEDIATELY created an empty Talk page for it. Please explain how there is even the slightest point to that?
 * If you look at template:WPBannerMeta the DEFAULT behavior of ALL WikiProject banners is to NOT have a 'redirect' class unless the particular project has defined a 'custom class mask' to create one. Specifically, if you look at the documentation for template:WikiProject Biography, you will see that 'redirect' is NOT a valid class. Even more specifically, if you look at Template:WikiProject Biography/class, the 'custom class mask' for Biographies, 'redirect' is again not listed.
 * You are responsible for your edits with AWB, and that /includes/ not 'automatically' breaking shit.
 * To be honest, as I mentioned above, these 'talk pages for redirects' are candidates for G8 speedy deletion db-talk and (again as I mentioned) I was specifically told 'please just make these redirects instead of trying to delete them because now that they exist it would be pointless' by an admin.


 * BTW, using Twinkle to revert good faith edits is highly offensive, as you're basically calling the other editor a vandal, and with the edit summary you used is /specifically/ 'abuse of anti-vandalism tools'. Not ignoring that point would probably be a good thing if you wan to have a 'friendly' conversation. Revent (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Bots/Requests_for_approval/ListasBot_3 <- this, BTW, was the approval of a bot /specifially/ to fix the kind of 'incomplete redirects' that you are creating en masse. Revent (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tools If you want me to be respectful to you, a good start is being respectful to me.
 * WT:TALK does not refer to creating talk pages to hold WikiProject banners. I don't understand how on the one hand you can say that creating talk pages for WikiProject banners is pointless but on the other hand say that the  class is not pointless. To be frank, you don't understand WT:TALK and you're contradicting yourself.
 * Do you know of any instances other than WPKOREA where I added a banner that resulted in the addition of some kind of maintenance category? My sneaking suspicion is that there isn't one (or there are few), making the rest of your gripe irrelevant. I haven't added a bunch of redirects for assessment because (again, correct me if I'm wrong) no banner with the class   requires assessment. E.g. the example you gave of Talk:Brass Tactics includes album which accepts   and WPALT which doesn't: neither one is put into a maintenance category. Show me a maintenance category that I have populated or else you're just rambling on about nothing in particular. I don't see anywhere that I've added WPBIO with   and when you do, it is not added to Category:Unassessed biography articles. So what on Earth are you talking about?
 * The purpose of nominating something for deletion and then adding appropriate banners is two-fold: on the one hand, something might not get deleted. Why would I want to come back to it then and add the banners? On the other hand, marking it with a banner allows bots to add it to deletion discussions or possibly just gives it some visibility to users (such as yourself) who stroll through these WikiProject categories. As you can see, what's really pointless is making the talk page a redirect to match the article space, as then no one would be watching it in case something funny happens to it. Also, sometimes redirects are turned into articles and sometimes articles are turned into redirects.
 * You're being a fussy crank here on my talk. Calm down, make some sense, and we can discuss this like adults. If you want to come here to scream profanity at me and ramble on about things that I never did or which are irrelevant, then what is your point? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bot What does a bot which hasn't edited for three years and when it did, did not do what I do in any way relevant? What is your point? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Respect, lol...you're pointedly ignoring my /specific/ criticism of your use of Twinkle, the 'widely agreed to' opinion that using 'anti-vandalism' tools to revert good faith edits is HIGHLY offensive (as it basically calls the other person a vandal), etc. When people 'pick and choose' what they want to respond to, and ignore criticisms of their behavior, it tends to irritate me, especially when I was pointing out that using Twinkle in that manner is EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN THE TWINKLE DOCS as 'abuse of an anti-vandalism tool.' The 'temperature' of my comments didn't go up until you made it clear you were going to ignore that, and about half of the rest of what I said. Also, changing the conversation from my 'use of fuck for emphasis' to (silly) personal attacks (calling me a 'fussy crank') isn't exactly helpful, and makes your 'complaint' pretty much a joke.


 * The point of mentioning the 'listasbot' was more the tone of the discussion, actually, and pointing out the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad. You can (trivially) find many other discussions about 'incomplete redirects' where the same consensus was expressed (RFCs, etc)....that 'null content' talk pages for redirects are candidates for G8 speedy, but that 'completing the redirect' is 'cheaper' on the database.
 * This has been the case for YEARS.
 * There are literally /thousands/ of examples in your edit history of you creating 'empty' talk pages for 'non-article' pages. I'm not going to make a list unless this becomes a matter of 'providing evidence'.
 * FYI, 'listasbot' was deactivated for 'technical reasons', not because of removal of it's approval. If the /admin/ who owns it turned it back on tomorrow, it would still be a 'approved bot', and it's EXPLICIT PURPOSE was to complete the type of 'incomplete redirects' that you are creating, by making the exact same type of edits as what you reverted.
 * The 'redirect class' is not pointless FOR THOSE WIKIPROJECTS THAT TRACK THEIR REDIRECTS, which is very few of them. It's trivial to glance at the documentation for the banner or the 'assessment page' for the project and see what parameters are actually supported. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that your 'automated' edits are correct, not mine to dig through the documentation for you.


 * Your example of Talk:Kim Jong Il specifically....per WikiProject_Biography/Assessment the 'redirect' class is not supported by the Biography wikiproject (it's use in that banner is 'broken'), and that /particular/ edit added that talk page to the 'Biography articles without listas parameter' error tracking category (a subset of 'Wikipedia backlog', 'Biography articles needing attention', AND 'Wikipedia template parameter issues'). Maybe you'd like to retry with an example that /didn't/ break things?
 * Your habitual use of AWB to do so is disruptive behavior, as you are making 'automatic' mistakes (in the thousands) that someone else will have to fix.


 * Instead of making 'blanket statements' that "I don't understand" actually debating the point would, you know maybe actually accomplish something. The talk page policy says to not create talk pages just to hold header templates....my assumption (since you haven't actually tried to make an argument) is that you're trying to 'wikilawyer' that 'banner templates' aren't specifically mentioned, which is WP:POINTy behavior.


 * Given that 'your' chosen example of a 'good' edit /specifically/ added that page to a backlogged maintenance category, it would be a waste of time to dig for more examples. You're honestly not giving the impression that you have any intent of listening, and your history reinforces that. Revent (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Still? I don't see how your tone was respectful previously but that's neither here nor there: I'll just take it for granted that you were and move on. I also can't sympathize with being "highly offended" by someone using Twinkle to revert me versus manually reverting, but okay--you were highly offended by that. I'll take it for granted that you don't want to be reverted using semi-automatic tools, although they are not exclusively intended for fighting vandalism, nor did I ever claim that you were being a vandal.
 * "the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad." ???
 * If you're granting that  is useful for projects that support it then why are you complaining about totally irrelevant banners that I didn't add (e.g. WPBIO)? Most of the redirects I have ever tagged are for album, which does support it. In the case of (e.g.) WPALT it is simply tagged as   class which is not a problem. As far as I am aware it is only with a handful of banners (e.g. WPKOREA and WPFILM) that   generates some kind of problem tracking category and out of the tens of thousands of redirect tags that I've made, less than 1/10% are the problematic ones. So what is your point? If you do something right 99.99% of the time, it is reasonable for someone to harangue you over the >0.01% where you don't?
 * Evidently, you did not understand my point in tagging Talk:Kim Jong Il: If it is tagged, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Final Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Koei Category
This category created by user Madus236 should be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Koei_video_games Because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Koei_games already exists. Thanks. --95.69.84.43 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Androphilia and gynephilia article. And WP:TRIVIA.
Hello, Koavf. Regarding your moving the Androphilia and gynephilia article to Ambiphilia, androphilia, and gynephilia, that should not have been done. The article hardly discusses ambiphilia because the term is far less used than the other two terms by researchers (or by others) to describe sexuality; some editor added it to that article when it is barely anything but an obscure term for bisexuality/pansexuality. As stated on that article's talk page in the Rename section, the terms ambiphilia and ambiphilic are more commonly used in chemistry; Google searches, such as this Google Books search, confirm that. Therefore, since for some reason I cannot move the article back to Androphilia and gynephilia without administrative assistance, I will go to WP:Requested moves about this if you would rather not pursue moving the article back. Once it is moved back, I will remove the term ambiphilia from the lead, per WP:LEAD, and the section on it because it is an empty section with the exception of the one-line note about bisexuality. Did you check that article's talk page first to see that such a move would likely be contested?

And while I don't mind this deletion you made at the Pansexuality article, and agreement about removing that section was noted at at my talk page earlier this year, I ask that you keep in mind that In the media and In popular culture type of sections are allowed, provided that they look like what is done for the WP:FA Homer Simpson article or WP:FA Brad Pitt article with regard to such sections; see the WP:Popular culture essay.

I'll currently be watching your talk page for replies about all of this, so there is no need to reply on my talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename. If the article is refactored, then by all means move it back. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * I know It's pretty ridiculous. Thanks for the dessert. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! I'm actually pretty hungry now and can use some pie myself. Also, thanks for reviewing my user page! It's pretty cool being reviewed by the most active editor on Wikipedia. I just removed the reference as I didn't really need it. Anyway you know how much the community appreciates your 1,316,027+ edits to the encyclopedia, and with those numbers I can't imagine how many edit wars you've been in! I'll see you around. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

List of exclamations by Robin‎
Please stop blanking the content on this page. Not only are you edit warring, and you're one revert away from WP:3RR, which could lead to block, but you're blanking content on an article that is currently at WP:AFD. Let the discussion run it's course and give your opinion if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Jauersockdude?/dude. 13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right I initiated that conversation... Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We don't include every cover of Yesterday (The Beatles song) in that article, nor do we have every instance of the utterance of any other catchphrase. Why would this be different? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you don't blank an article that's under discussion at AFD, especially when consensus at that AFD seems clearly against deletion, at least at the moment. If you have a cogent argument to make about the merits of the content, make it at the AFD. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What Ultraexactzz said. That's what an AFD is for.  Once it's up at AFD, let others decide the fate of the content.  There's no need to blank the article while the AFD is progress.  What's the point of the AFD then if you're already deleting most of the article on your own?  Jauersockdude?/dude. 15:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1M+ Edits
Hey, Justin,

I saw that you had completed over a million edits and I just wondered how you did it! I see you joined Wikipedia 8 years so that gives you a big head's start. ;- ) But how many hours a week do you think you spend editing? I feel like I'm always on but I do a lot of reading, not editing. It's very impressive! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 01:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit count Two things that help a lot are AWB and HotCat, which are semi-automated tools. My editing level is contingent upon how much work I have and my mood: I have spent years unemployed so I had *lots* of time to spend here doing menial tasks. It's a pleasure to meet you, Liz. I'm glad that you're editing as well! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense. I've also found editing involving assigning and deleting categories is a lot less subject to debates than corrections involving content and have done some work with the CfD process.
 * By the way, since you are a long-timer, if a proposal I made goes through and a large number of articles are recategorized, is there an automated way of doing this or do I need to go through and change categories on every article manually? NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Categorization It can be automated or semi-automated depending on the proposal itself. What are you wanting to do specifically? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I had a few proposals over at CfD that I need to check in on and see where they stand. So far, the first ones I proposed were shot down. But, here's an example. There was "Child Actor" and "Female Child Actress" so I proposed "Male Child Actor" and those two categories would both be under "Child Actor". There are approximately 1200 female and 1200 male child actors and the idea of changing those categories manually for the boys was a little overwhelming. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffusion That is exactly the sort of thing that I could breeze through. I'm a big fan of just diffusing categories yourself: take the initiative. If you want me to do it, let me know. What else do you want to do? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that would be very helpful. I need to go to CfD and see which proposals were okay'd and then get back to you with the information.
 * For a while, I was thinking that my contribution could be with organizing categories as it is a matter of have accurate category titles and placing categories in right parent-child relationship with each other. But either I'm not presenting my case persuasively enough at CfD or I'm challenging long-standing norms. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD But this is what I'm saying: don't go to CfD, just do what you want (unless what you want is to delete or rename a category). May I have links to the specific CfDs? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of them are renames or mergers. I need to track them down (they were mostly in July) but I'll get back to you. Thanks for your help! Liz Let's Talk 16:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)

You come highly recommended
Please see this request for help where your name has ben mentioned as a skilled mentor who may fel able to mentor an Asperger Spectrum editor. Would you mind commenting over there rather than here about your willingness and skill to help (or otherwise, naturally). Fiddle  Faddle  17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mishae said he and you were offering to help on Damon Matthew Wise
We are having problem matching images and evidence back up from period before there were many webpages. Damon set up a whole lot of pages on Ireland OnLine, Eircom, EsatClear (the companies no longer exist) and the are old html 1 or such (mostly text and very basic links) so difficult to find without tags etc - trying to find evidence from Usenet news groups and lists pre-web is near impossible. We have complete access to Damon's facebook which has most of his images - problem is getting the images through permissions with Wikimedia. He has to keep sending permissions and trying to get images unblocked.

They want to condense down the content - instructions in talk ... Damon and his family do no use skype because of risk to the children. He and Karen are letting us use the office computer and let log us on to their social networking sites ... most content of text and images are in his facebook photos = stories from newspaper articles, with links and stuff are tucked away there.

Suggest you contact Damon on his facebook or Karen's and access his photo albums and look around what you can use (most is available to public), so we very lucky of having a lot of past messages and reports. If you make contact on his facebook and have dropbox send him your e-mail address on facebook and we will start giving you archives of the websites from backup drives (that's how we get much content last week.

We have added every potential link down before the references - these can be merged into the text or looked out for useful background relevant to the text.

The general skeleton is there. It is now down adding links and refs and editing down irrelevant text and duplication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My recommendation I would suggest that you first userfy this article and then we can work on it together in your userspace. It seems like you've got a lot to say and I have no doubt that we can work on this one. Do you want to do that? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality is evil
Homosexuality is evil. Homosexuality is evil (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
Hi Justin,

Any reason why you removed Category:Christian terrorism from Category:Christian_radicalism. As we're both pacifists I guess we both find the above subject a little unsavory but sadly there are some Christians who are both violent and "radical". Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Terminology Precisely because "Christian radicalism" is a term which is more-or-less technical and refers to Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. and not just anything that a Christian does or believes which can be considered radical. If there are reliable sources which consistently refer to Christian terrorism as "Christian radicalism" then forgive me: it's an appropriate categorization. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There seem to be many sources out there. I had a quick search, and can pull up more if you like, but here is one. The term radicalization is mostly used by the powers and media to describe violent fanatics rather than radical pacifists (unfortunately!). Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources ABC-CLIO seems like a reliable source. If they call Christian terrorism "Christian radicalism" then that's a start but again, the term is widely applied to something else entirely. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ABC-CLIO? Shall I go ahead and revert then? Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting It's your call. I still wouldn't but if you want to, I won't stop you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Butler
Hello, you should not have moved The Butler to Lee Daniels' The Butler. The talk page shows a clear consensus in opposition to such a move. If you want to move it, please start a new RM discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada
You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks But how/why? It's news to me! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I read your user page, and see that you have made over a million contributions. I had to give you a barnstar. I chose this one even though I wasn't sure if you had made a ton of contributions about the Christian faith. But I guess even how much you opened up about your religious beliefs is pretty cool... Ensignricky (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Well, I think you're pretty alright yourself. Thanks for the encouragement. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Georgia Music Hall of Fame inductees
Category:Georgia Music Hall of Fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just curious...
Why did you remove Category:The Beatles from Maureen Starkey Tigrett? At first I wondered if perhaps you were a new Wikipedian who didn't get how categories work, but having checked your contribs I can see you're far more experienced than I. I'm guessing this was the result of a discussion? I feel like, since she was once married to a member, she should be in the category, but I'm open to considering any reasoning you may have on the matter. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories She's already in Category:Ringo Starr and Category:The Beatles is a subcategory of that as well. If you take every person who is associated with just one Beatle (Zak Starkey, Yoko Ono, Patti Boyd, etc.) and merge all of them into Category:The Beatles, then that will become unnecessarily bloated. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks for the prompt reply. :) Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I need an overseer
Can you watch AspieNo1 talkpage, it seams that the storm is brewing there and I don't wont him to be blocked. I'm thanking you in advance!--Mishae (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Grateful Dead -- Bruce Hornsby
Hello. You removed Bruce Hornsby from the infobox list of Grateful Dead members, here. There's sort of an ongoing discussion about whether or not he should be listed. Since you seem to have an opinion about this somewhat controversial subject, I would encourage you to comment, at Talk:Grateful Dead. Note also the link to the links [sic] to the several previous discussions on this subject, which I would encourage you to review. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 06:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

New Kingdom
I noticed that you created categories for the New Kingdom of Egypt in the 2nd century. But Egyptologists use the term New Kingdom in reference to the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties of Pharaohs. It covers the era from the 16th to the 11th century BC. The 2nd century dates to 13 centuries after the end of the New Kingdom and your categories actually cover Roman rule in Egypt. Perhaps you should nominate these for renaming. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks I guess I goofed there. Some of those categories can remain (e.g. the main one) and some will have to be renamed based on anachronisms. Thanks! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a mental disorder
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is a mental disorder (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New user
I have just welcomed a new user and already informed him of you, so that he can come either to my (I will be gone for a week) or yours talkpage. Can you be kind enough to guide him so that it wont end up like with all other Aspie users? I'm thanking you in advance,--Mishae (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contactee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lunatic fringe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks! I prefer tea, so I'll just pretend that's what it is. Either way, a nice gesture. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever it maybe :-P Drink and keep editing man! XD :) Thank you! :) --  L o g    X   20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)