User talk:Koavf/Archive013

User talk:Koavf archives

001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb 002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb 003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb 004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb 005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb 006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb 007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb 008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb 009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb 010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb 011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb 012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb 013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb 014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb 015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb 016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb 017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb 018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb 019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb 020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb 021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb 022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb 023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb 024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb 025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb 026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb 027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb 028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb 030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb 031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb 032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb 033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb 034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb 035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb 036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb 037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb 038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb 039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb 040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb 041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb 042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb 043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb 044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb 045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb 046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb 047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb 048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb 049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb 050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb 051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb 052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb 053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb 054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb 055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb 056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb 057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb 058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb 059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb 060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb 061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb Current discussion

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

For Better or For Worse

You have moved some articles related to this comic strip from "For Better or For Worse" to "For Better or for Worse". Was this discussed anywhere? It seems to me that the comic strip alwayscapitalizes the second "For" (see e.g. their own website[1]), and we shouldn't "correct" the capitalization of book titles / series titles. I would appreciate it (if you don't have a good reason to the contrary of course) if you would revert these moves. Fram (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Third party

Hi Koavf,

I was wondering if you could give a third-party opinion on a disagreement on Abrahamic religion, with the other editor not assuming good faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's your time

Hi there! I think you should read it [2] and call admins to solve this problem as soon as possible. Ciao! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

110th United States Congress

In your zeal to delink dates per the new WP:MOS, you made May into March, June into July and deleted notes ("< ! --"). I've corrected them on 110th United States Congress. Please check other articles you've changed to make sure they're correct. Thanks.—Markles 10:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also be sure to check leading zeros. On 111th United States Congress you changed a date into November 04, 2008, when it should have read November 4, 2008. I've corrected it. Thanks.—Markles 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Everything That Happens Will Happen Today deluxe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Everything That Happens Will Happen Today deluxe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Palmer (author) ?

The article is really about him as the leader of "Avatar". He isn't even a real author, published by anyone but himself. His books under his name are written by his company staff and are marketing materials and workbooks, that's it. As guru of the cult, he is synonymous with his company "Star's Edge" that runs the "Avatar" courses that they are most commonly known by. If anything, the article should be renamed to "Avatar (Harry Palmer)" Seriously. I recommend changing it back or to the above suggestion, as he as an "author" is completely un-noteworthy by itself, not just inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Morocco

Hi Justin. I saw that you reverted my removal of the map. We've discussed the map in depth at Morocco's talk page for almost two years before finally reaching that consensus. What's happening now? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Morocco

Hi Justin. I saw that you reverted my removal of the map. We've discussed the map in depth at Morocco's talk page for almost two years before finally reaching that consensus. What's happening now? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello, Koavf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Churchill and bipolar disorder

Hi -- you placed Winston Churchill into the category of people with bipolar disorder. Do you have a verifiable source for this? Best, RayAYang (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources in the list seem a little weak, but it's good enough for a category listing, at least as far as I'm concerned. RayAYang (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008

Please don't add fact tags without first checking the references. Everything in this article is properly cited. Also, your reformating of the "endorsements" goes against a standard used in these articles. I appalaud your edits to corrections in capitalization and links and I would ask that you restore these but at the moment these edits are intertwined with unnecessary formating changes and fact tags. Thank you. I hope you understand buddy. --William Saturn (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All the quotes are attributed to their speaker as per MOS. Its not published material, its not necessary to continually repeat the footnote to the citation when it is located at the end of the paragraph.--William Saturn (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember adding that quote. The reference is found at the end of the paragraph. Its not necessary to add a footnote at the end of every sentence. Thats not in MOS. --William Saturn (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you so much for supporting our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I will get you a lot of proiten bars!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.177.140 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

tHANKS FOR THE OPPOSITION TO (THE ABUSE) OF SAUD HOUSE. AND TOO MUCH EXCESSES. Hell for leather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a cite needs to be listed at the end of every sentence but I did it anyways to put an end to this frivolous edit war. I don't think you should be so inclined to tag up an article without any regard, its not very helpful.--William Saturn (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You know well enough by now that revert-warring is not the answer, it would be a shorter block were it not for your history - you should really know better by now. Please take the time to think how you could have approached this in a less confrontational and disruptive manner. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious AN report

It is really serious now. AN report. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep Purple in Rock

Hi Koavf. I have just become aware that User:Joe routt has done a piece by piece cut and paste from Deep Purple in Rock to In Rock - and then you (sensibly) moved In Rock to In Rock (Deep Purple album) and In Rock became a disamb page. However, In Rock (Deep Purple album) should be Deep Purple in Rock - as that is the name of the album.[3] [4]. What needs to happens is restoring Deep Purple in Rock to this edit, editing In Rock to direct to the correct Deep Purple article name, and returning In Rock (Deep Purple album) to this edit, all of which I can do. I've informed User:Oxymoron83, an admin who got involved, I'm letting you know, and I'll be letting User:Joe routt know as well. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image problem

Hey Koavf, I just uploaded a image of a poster "Image:Amar Es Combatir poster (amazon).jpg". Im unable to put it were I wanted it to go to "Amar es Combatir Tour. Would you be able to help me? Thanks! Manafan5 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AN result

The thread concerning you/your conduct at WP:AN is now archived; your restrictions are noted at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as a result of the consensus expressed by the community [5]. You have been subject to an account restriction, a topic ban and a further editing restriction (probation):

1) You are hereby limited to editing with a single account.

2) You are hereby prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.

3) Should you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, you may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on your talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Koavf/Community_sanction.

I advise you to comply with these sanctions to the spirit and letter - if you violate these sanctions, you will be blocked from editing for a period of time, or possibly banned from the site. You may appeal these sanctions to the community, or to the Arbitration Committee, but I personally would advise you not to for now. It is likely that an appeal for lifting of the restrictions would be viewed favourably by the community if you are able to productively edit other subjects over a long period of time. I would expect 6 months to be the absolute minimum people would consider sufficient to justify revisiting this decision, though it is more likely to be a longer period of time in this case - but that is only my personal view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What part of your ban from editing Western Sahara pages did you not understand? Well your decision, like your edit warring. (collounsbury (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Help regarding WP policies and posting repeatedly personal names by WP:Editors

Hi Justin, I am back again. Please have a look at the New Kadampa Tradition article and its talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition. Editors have repeatedly posted the private name of an editor on the talk page ("Tenzin Peljor" or "Tenzin"; the one they assume to be my personal name), and one of them (Atisha's Cook) even after I made known the WP:policy about this. The latter also reverts the template I inserted and on which I gave extensive reasons at the talk page. As I remember you as being neutral, accurate and with knowledge of WP policies and you offered me help when editors violated the rules in the Shugden article in the past, I would like to ask you to give a note and your opinion to the admin board and to offer your opinion at the talk page. I prefer this because it is better to have a neutral person looking on this issue. The one notice you offered help already was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden Thanks a lot, --Kt66 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On Kt66's user page he lists his private website as http://info-buddhism.com/ and in the Impressum[6] linked to at the bottom of every page on that website, he says his name is "Tenzin Peljor" and even lists his personal email and mailing addresses. He himself make this connection public, so I don't think this can be an instance of outing him since this "editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves" as per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Emptymountains, the first WP:outing was made in October 2006 as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_6#Kind_request_for_kt66_to_stop_editing_this_article The addition of a link similar as you mention was made on 23:05, 3 May 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kt66&oldid=209994593 not before this date. It follows WP:outing happened before the link addition and was continued since then by many other editors, including you. Nowhere the user kt66 stated his name, did he? The addition to the external link was made after he retired from Wikipedia. As the user has never made a statement about his name neither on his user page, his talk page or any of the talk pages of the articles he contributed, for me this is clearly a violation of WP:outing, much more as the tone of many editors are rather aggressive and WP:outing appears to me to just be a mean to silence the editor (me). --Kt66 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, it's strange to see someone referring to himself in the third person. Anyways, I never used your name until after you posted a link from your userpage to your personal information on your website. I would suggest that you change this if you no longer want people to know it. And, I wasn't trying to silence you, just seeing through the IP address you were using, which you admitted this week enabled you to make anonymous edits since you "retired." I wonder if intentionally not using one's Wikipedia username when making edits and instead doing so under the guise of an IP address amounts to sockpuppetting? Emptymountains (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It's always good to try to have a distant view to oneself. If I don't do this another editor of the related editor team will probably claim I would "disqualified" myself by "emotive language" as it happened today. ;-) It's true you seem to have used the name not before. However, I think if an objective outsider reads the talk page it becomes clear that the name calling is a collective sport against me and that it clearly constitutes harassment. --Kt66 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Marpa hasn't been on Wikipedia since 2006, the year that first "outing" took place. So, there haven't been any outings by the Wikipedia editors (i.e., "Atisha's cook, Emptymountains, truthbody etc, and User:82.27.245.230") whom you named this week on the New Kadampa Tradition talk page until after you posted links to your personal information from your Wikipedia userpage. In the future, I suggest that you follow Wikipedia's recommendation regarding making edits using an IP address instead of your username: "It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym" as per Wikipedia:Privacy_policy#Identification_of_an_author. Emptymountains (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains, WP:outing was practised also by you and others regarding the 79.171.58.252 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Chatral_Rinpoche and the talk page on the NKT website (see responses to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#NPOV_and_others_POV). There is no statement of a personal name by 79.171.58.252 nor is there a link from which you could have derived a name. You have derived the name from personal investigation and this website: http://newkadampatradition.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/tenzin-peljor-editor-and-chief/ where you also commented your investigation don't you? By the way the 79.171.58.252 I use sometimes but at the place where I live about 70 or more people use the same IP, there are edits on computer games I have no idea at all. Emptymountains states at this website:

Tenzin Peljor visited the DharmaProtector.org website today from IP address 79.171.63.246. My website statistics list the referring URL as “westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php,” which only the administrator of the “Western Shugden Society - Unlocked” blog would be logged in to. So, yes, it was TP who edited the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism, only to subsequently quote “himself” on his personal blog later that day. I thought he was “retired” from Wikipedia?

Please explain this. --Kt66 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was Sherlock Holmes in a former life? The result of that 'investigation' was not posted on Wikipedia, so it's outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Emptymountains (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've followed the links pointed to by EmptyMountains, and I think he's right that it seems that KT66 has posted links on Wikipedia that reveal his name and contact information. KT66 is also correct in saying that nowhere on his userpage, etc. has he referred to himself by his real name, but the Harassment criteria say "unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves." It seems that the current references to KT66 as "Tenzin" don't constitute "outing." The original instances from several years ago might have been instances of outing, but it seems that KT66 has now outed himself. That being said, what is the best practice here? Most of the editors would probably be happy to voluntarily refrain from using the name "Tenzin" if that is what KT66 is requesting (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceful5 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind what I call him, but he has not been shy before about referring to himself as Tenzin, so this concern at being "outed" seemed to come out of left field -- still, I am happy to adapt, the article is the main thing and it'd be nice to get back to discussing that. Meanwhile, I repeat this from the talk pages to show that he has not been entirely blameless himself: "Lucy (maybe you are not Lucy but name calling seems to be a proper attitude here), not that bad that idea)"

kt66, this is hypocritical. Did you or did you not write those words? There is no one by that name on this article. No one even has that name in their profile. It seems that you are trying to out someone WP:outing and this should be brought to the attention of the administrators as well. (Truthbody (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)) (Truthbody (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Thank you Koavf. I gave a notice to the Admin board and two Admins have replied. You can see the result in the Admin archive. I am satisfied with the result. Best Wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Don Gehman

I have nominated Don Gehman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gehman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Forget Me Not (Lucie Silvas)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Forget Me Not (Lucie Silvas), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Forget Me Not (Lucie Silvas) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Forget Me Not (Lucie Silvas), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union and Russia

I have nominated Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union and Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Military facilities of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Albums produced by Adam Selzer

I have nominated Category:Albums produced by Adam Selzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations claim

Dear Koavf. If you have time I would like to ask you as a independent person (not engaged in the related articles) please have a look on Prehistory_of_the_New_Kadampa_Tradition and add your opinion if this is true that this would constitute crv as claimed by user:emptymountains I investigated the first three paragraphs and could not find any. I added links to the origin source as well. see also my answer with the origin source. Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi, there is currently a discussion ongoing at AN/I which concerns you, here. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 11:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Final Warning

Hi Koavf,

As you may or may not be aware, during your recent absence, certain editing restrictions were imposed upon you. For your reference, they are listed here:

Should Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be subject to the community sanctions that have been established at this discussion:

• Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
• Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.}
• Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

Some of your recent edits, including but not limited to this and this violate these restrictions. As you have been absent, I have opted not to block you straight out, but you may take this message as your final warning. Further violations of these restrictions will lead to consequences, which may include blocks and/or bans.

If you've any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or at the AN/I thread that User:Neurolysis has linked to above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Template:Vincent van Gogh

You deleted the Family section and put Theo van Gogh under Friends.[7] He was his brother, so needs to be in Family. There may be articles on other members of the family in due course also. Ty 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case it is an important categorisation and sufficiently so to merit the label even if he is the only one in it. It is a key part of Van Gogh's story that it was his brother who supported him, and to put this in with "friends" is simply misleading. Ty 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, as long as you have no problem with it being edited in that way. Ty 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I returned family to the template re adding his brother, adding his sister in law, his cousin and his great grand nephew are all relatives..and all are relevant...Modernist (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

On a second look, it's fine due all of the black background which really not copyrightable, and the faces of the two men are low-res. Maxim_(talk) 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

David Byrne and Brian Eno 2008.jpg

Sorry to bother you about File:David Byrne and Brian Eno 2008.jpg again - but I've tagged it for a disputed non-free image use rationale. The reason is that, even if the image is irreplaceable as you've written, since the use of the image is decorative, it does not meet WP:NFCC#8. --Mosmof (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mighty ReArranger Special.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mighty ReArranger Special.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting connections

While looking in the article history, I saw your edit for the RPCA, and was initially curious how you ran across it, until I saw that you were a CCHS student. I've not thought of him in a long time, but I wish I could have more contact with a certain Australian who taught at the school :-) and I hope that you enjoyed working with and/or studying under him. Have a good night. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Matha

Hello Koavf,

I noticed that you had moved Matha to Maţha some time back. I think though, that Matha, if it is to have any diacritical marks, needs a t with a dot below, like this "ṭ" rather than with a comma below as you have given. Do you think it is necessary to have any diacritical mark at all? Perhaps it makes more sense, in the English Wikipedia, to leave out the diacritical marks when there is no possibility of confusion... So I propose moving Matha either to Maṭha or back to Matha. Devadaru (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

You recreated Category:Jimmy Page which had been deleted, foolishly, at cfd. Was there any reaction to this? (I think it was cited as an example at WP:OCAT.) Occuli (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Russia

It has been about six months since Russavia's proposed new bold format was developed, using a table, smaller pictures, names of heads of missions and cross accreditations. We did not come to any consensus about using it - but it was a good opportunity to see how it would look. May I also add we were worn down by Russavia's persistence that his design stay, that we redo the taxonomy of the DMBC articles ("by sending state", "by receiving state"), and we allow all those articles of Russian missions (and missions to Russia) to exist, even if they just consist of the name of the ambassador and its address.

I am still not convinced that the design of Russavia's format is an improvement on the existing design, or that these articles are the right place to list heads of missions or accreditations. I have not seen any significant endorsement of his new format, nor anybody stating they wanted to make wholesale changes to all articles.

Please note what the Arbitration Committee states about MoS conflicts:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.

Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

As the first major contributor of this article I intend now to revert the article back to its original style, including any subsequent updates.

Please add your views in the talk page of Diplomatic missions of Russia.

Kransky (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographic threat

You moved Demographic threat iIsrael to Demographic threat several months ago. following your suggestion and others on the talk page, I made some improvements this morning. I would be glad to have your opinion, imput on the articleHistoricist (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Travis (band)

Category:Travis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. As you opined on the previous cfd, you might wish to comment at the discussion page. Occuli (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:X-ray sources

Category:X-ray sources, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MLK

I did the Category:Works of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Category:Works by Martin Luther King, Jr. change immediately since you created it and requested it and you were the only editor. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Audio mixing (live)

Why did you move Audio mixing (live) to Audio mixing (live music)? Much of live sound mixing does not specifically involve music; instead, a large proportion involves speaking parts in theater performances as well as mixing for corporate and civic meetings. I would like to see the move reverted. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your move to 'live audio'. The newscast mixers, sportscast mixers and panel discussion mixers thank you. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves

Koavf - please can you consult before moving pages relating to Orwell. Inside the Whale was published as an essay and the article is about the essay, not a booklet of essays. Also The Adelphi was also called New Adelphi and so Adelphi covered both incarnations. Please don't say you were being bold (the usual excuse) - changing things back is a pain. Thanks and regards. Otherwise KUTGW Motmit (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "Inside the Whale" is the name of an essay which is one thing and the name of the original book containing several other essays which is something else and it furthers the confusion not to distinguish them. "Inside the Whale and Other Essays" is reprint of "Selected Essays" (at least over here) which includes a different selection of essays. "The Adelphi" is actually the name of a former building complex in London which is probably mistitled as Adelphi, London. You may or may not be right but it does help to communicate. Regards Motmit (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have one article for the essay, and one for the book (just like a song and album - "Please Please Me" somehow springs to mind). BTW I liked the signature. Regards Motmit (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bibliography

I replied on my talk page, copy/pasting here: You are welcome, unfortunately, I was wrong, what broke the template was specifying "Image size =" without a value. Well, it's fixed anyhow but... Equendil Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replies have been made at the help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{resolved}} ~~~~ at the top of the section. Thank you, ZooFari 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Gatsby 1925 jacket.gif}

Thank you for uploading File:Gatsby 1925 jacket.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Originals

Hi - link is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ITunes_Originals. Black Kite 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:koavf/R.E.M.. I admit that I didn't realise the sub-articles hadn't been tagged, and I'm not particularly happy with the nominator that they hadn't - more editors might have come forward to comment if they had. If that goes to DRV I'll be happy to point that out (though I believe the closure was correct). Black Kite 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback, please...

Greetings Koavf. I am truly impressed by the huge amount of work you have been doing on all the articles referring to George Orwell. However, I have been experiencing a growing ill-feeling towards some of the unilateral changes you are making. One of the many criteria on which Wikipedia is based is concensus, and I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, the changes you have been making have been made without entering into any sort of consensus-building.

I would appreciate it, for example, if you could explain why you have - unilaterally - moved the article List of publications by George Orwell to Bibliography of George Orwell. The former list is a chronological list of his publications, whereas the latter is not chronological but thematic. I'm actually not sure which is "better" - and it is pretty much irrelevant - I'd just like to be able to discuss the pros and cons of each - in the spirit of Wikipedia editors. Look forward to your feedback,--Technopat (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Justin (Koavf) - Thanks for replying. I'll reply in opposite order:

Re. your 3. Your concern is that the new article is thematic rather than chronological, but it is actually both (as well as alphabetical), as all of the publications are listed in a sortable table. This serves the function of having a thematic list of publications, an alphabetical one, and a chronological one as well, without having multiple articles of virtually identical content. If you want a thematic bibliography, you can read it as written, and if you want either of the other two options, you can simply click on an arrow in the table (note that it is already arranged alphabetically.), I'm sorry, but in my haste and concern I hadn't noticed the chronological arrow in the table. I did consider the chronology a particularly important aspect, especially as Orwell's stuff often correspond to events he was witnessing at the moment of writing.

Re your 2. In terms of naming, I decided that since the main category for these articles is Category:Bibliographies by author, it makes sense for this merged content to be entitled "George Orwell bibliography." As you can see in that category, there is a wide discrepancy of how these are named and even if there is some standard, it is presently not followed., that kind of stuff should, and could quite easily, have been discussed among editors in order to reach consensus.

Re. your 1. Formerly, there were the articles Essays of George Orwell and List of George Orwell publications. As you can see, these are essentially overlapping, redundant articles, so it made sense to me to merge their content (technically speaking, I didn't move either.), I agree that, due to overlaps, it would make apparent sense to merge the two articles (Essays of George Orwell and List of George Orwell publications) but it would, I think, have made more sense, following discussion, to merge the former with the latter. As to your second point (...technically speaking...), you had, possibly inadvertently, deleted the two articles. Your explanation (Item 3) now solves that one. I had been noticing your edits over time and while they seemed interesting, when I saw the chronological list "disappear" I felt I had to lodge a formal complaint, especially as there was no "declaration of intent" anywhere.

I'm sure that the result of your hard work is actually the best solution and adds greatly to the subject (I just don't have time right now to check it all out), but I do miss not having had the chance to at least discuss your long/sort term changes and to read other editors' opinions and suggestions for improving the subject matter. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Old" redirect of International recognition

Greetings. I have left a post at Talk:International recognition. Could you care to take a moment and check it? All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 09:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)