User talk:Koavf/Archive031

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

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

By the way, I'm not an admin—once a month, I get a request for admin help. See WP:AN.

Category:Albums produced by Jim Stewart (music)

Category:Albums produced by Jim Stewart (music), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by David Porter (musician)

Category:Albums produced by David Porter (musician), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Mark Clarke (musician)

Category:Albums produced by Mark Clarke (musician), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer

Hi. I see you added Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter back to this article's "See Also" section. Despite your explanation, I'm not seeing how this book is related to the show. "See Also" sections should attempt to list topics that are directly related to the subject. As far as I can tell, the only thing the show has in common with this book is that both are fictional topics about Lincoln. By that logic, all fictional portrayals, etc. should be listed in the section. Unless I'm missing something, I still don't believe this book should be listed. I'll be happy to open an RfC on the matter to get more community input though. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for your detailed explanation. I'll leave the content as is. Happy editing. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FfD Nom of File:Soul Calibur DC.jpg

The reason was "Invalid FUR". The deleting admin took a second look and judged to FUR as being okay; I'm still rather green when it comes to images and media work, would you mind letting me know what your concerns were with the FUR? For the record, here's how it was at the time of the nom. The intent behind this is to learn, not to accuse or anything of the sort. Thanks in advance! :) (Oh, and please respond here.) Salvidrim! 08:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FUR Thank you for asking. I thought that this picture isn't really necessary--what is it adding that the text can't accomplish? Since it's non-free media, you really have to justify its inclusion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not as much a problem with the FUR itself than concerns that the image may be unnessecary and could be adequately replaced by prose? As in, the problem did not lie with the way the FUR was done, but more with compliance with whether a screenshot is really needed or not. Thanks for the clarification. I'm asking because the nom seemed to imply the FUR itself was the problem (and I believe this is how the closing admin understood it also). :) Salvidrim! 09:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I think this ambiguity is entirely my fault. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

*shrugs No probs, thanks for explaining. :) Salvidrim! 10:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing {{Rating}}

Re User talk:Richardguk#Editing .7B.7BRating.7D.7D and Wikipedia:VPT##Suggested edit to template and creation of tracking category: See Template talk:Rating#New template code, where User:Bility says that he has made the changes to the /sandbox and will flag them with an {{editrequest}} "in a few days" so that an admin can amend the edit-protected template. — Richardguk (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of pre-Stonewall riots LGBT actions in the United States

I'm confused by that title - "pre-Stonewall riots LGBT actions"? Is it pre-Stonewall riots? Or pre-Stonewall LGBT actions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's about LGBT actions in the US that happened before the Stonewall riots, if I understand the title correctly. Salvidrim! 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly It's about things prior to the Stonewall riots (June 28, 1969 and following) since that is an event, rather than the Stonewall Inn itself, which is a location. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, when referring to anything LGBT, "Stonewall" refers to "Stonewall riots", without needing disambiguation. But if it needs to be changed, the current one is confusing, at least to me. Could we change it to something like "pre-1969 LGBT actions in the United States"? Or "LGBT actions in the United States that occurred before the Stonewall riots"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernacular It may be common amongst persons who use this terminology, but most persons wouldn't know what "Stonewall" is (and they may confuse it with the UK group), but if you're ignorant about the event, at least knowing that there was a riot will mark some kind of important shift. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Try something unambiguous such as "List of LGBT actions in the United States prior to the Stonewall riots". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lolz - if they confuse it with the Stonewall group in the UK, then they know what Stonewall is :) I do very much like the one Beyond My Ken suggested. Would you (koavf) be okay with that title? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure I think that's a very fine, unambiguous title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Monteverdi's lost operas

You recently changed the title of the above article. I have reverted to the original; by common usage Monteverdi belongs to that category of composers identified by surname. If you think there is a case for changing the article's title, please raise this as a thread on the talkpage, together with reasons. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Justin, there appears to be a long-standing consensus in place about the common use and recognition of last names in Classical music article titles. Hopefully you will familiarize yourself with the conventions and obtain consensus before making further moves of this type, since editors have to seek an administrator to undo each of them. --Laser brain (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Song categories

Koavf, we chatted a while ago about you managing to get the Album categories renamed. You mentioned that you were going to do the songs. Any timeline? I don't mean to sound pushy (actually I do! lol), but the name discrepancies are driving me to drink. I'm working on the Canadian Albums and songs. I haven't set any new song cats up yet. I'm putting it off as long as possible. Please advise on my talk page. Argolin (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Make the Foo the same for Songs as Albums. The Category:Folk rock albums by Canadian artists was renamed from Category:Canadian Folk rock albums here. You don't remember doing all this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23? I remember not being a big fan of the new naming structure. I could tell you put a lot of time and thought into this rename. You answered by questions quickly. I didn't want to be the one to stop it when more experienced editors were cheering the new names. I figured that I didn't know enough about the categorisation of Albums to oppose and would have to live with it. Today, yes it's great, rationale, and works well with Hotcat. Argolin (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Songs of the Canadian people, Really? :) LOL! That's almost as bad as album articles I've read with statements like artist X's album reached #1 in the US, but in their "native homeland" only reached ... and other verbage. And Nickelback? I know what cat they belong to and there are bad language rules against it (LOL)!

There is a Category:Canadian patriotic songs and yes of course Quebec has one but not as you/me would think Category:Quebec patriotic songs but as Category:Quebecois patriotic songs. AAAA! I'll delve into the song categories more. I am assuming that the "Canadian songs" categories are a big ol spaghetti dinner w xtra meatballs much like the album cats before I stuck my finger in. You may want to check out the history of Category:Rock albums by Canadian artists. It had subcats which were included in the parent genere cat. I solved this my moving anything XXX rock album ... to their new parent Category:Canadian rock music. See also Category:Canadian styles of music‎.

Another way to explain, is to look at Category:Albums by Canadian artists by genre. If you select any genre under this parent, you will get just what the name says Canadian band/musican albums. Full stop: no category links to other related categories. Let me know and I'll untangle the songs by moving stuff around a little. Argolin (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Life move

Can you tell me the reason why you moved Shakespeare's Life to [[William Shakespeare's life]? It's not as if anybody would be confused as to which Shakespeare the article is about. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare is commonly and universally referred to by his surname. The page William Shakespeare is the gateway page for a host of Wikipedia articles listed on several templates, many of which begin with "Shakespeare's". Wikipedia reflects real world usage, not some artificial agenda. The move was made without discussion as "uncontroversial", and if you had any experience with the Shakespeare articles, you would know that nothing is uncontroversial concerning Shakespeare.

I tried to restore it last night and as a result of several mistakes on my part, the talk page has now been deleted. I would appreciate if you would do what you can to restore both the talk page and the original name of the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have successfully restored the main page. Now I need to have the talk page restored. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ghost on the Canvas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gentle on My Mind (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) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Frasier episodes to consider creating

I have been spending a lot of time lately creating and modifying templates for critically acclaimed episode articles. You have already created "Space Quest (Frasier)". It has come to my attention that two of the most critically acclaimed episodes in television history are Frasier episodes entitled "The Matchmaker (Frasier)" and "Merry Christmas, Mrs. Moskowitz that need to be created. They both appear on {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicComedyScreenplay 1995–2009}}. The former apperas on {{EmmyAward ComedyDirector 1976–2000}}, while the latter appears on {{EmmyAward ComedyWriting 1976–2000}}. You may also note several other critically acclaimed Frasier episodes at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series, Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay - Episodic Comedy and Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Comedy Series that were either nominees or winners. You may want to consider creating some of those as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I see you created a redirect. Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kathy Simms

The article Kathy Simms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable character, completely non notable, needs no more than an entry on a list of The Office characters I'm sure exists. Article is synthesized original research and retelling of plot, a lot of which isn't even to do with her. Request delete as not even a viable search term but redirect would be acceptable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathy Simms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathy Simms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Simms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic

Just an FYI -- I couldn't understand this comment: Suggested move Template:Subt:Move Presently a redirect to the Society. Why? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Call Me Burroughs

This might be a bit outside your bailiwick, but as you have done quite a bit of album article work, I was hoping you might take a look at the article I have been writing, Call Me Burroughs, and tell me if you notice any glaring omissions. I know that the article is not finished, but I feel it is close to the point that it can actually be published, and then continue improving it from there. Maybe generate a DYK along the way, and even push it to GA status. At any rate, your thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work! All of those changes made perfect sense. The only question I have is about your capitalization of compact disc. Is that common practice? It is a minor point, either way. Thanks for all those links. I have gone through Google Books, and found some good information there, also a lot of hits that were intriguing but did not give enough information to go on because of incomplete previews. The reviews, in particular, though, are helpful. If you can think of anything else the article needs, please add it, but you have done really great work already. Thanks again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh. It's interesting that I never noticed that. Can I ask you to help with the picture for the infobox? I have never dealt with that process before, and never understood it. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear as mud. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra information. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Songs

Hey Koavf Happy B-day! Do you have any sort of timeline for the big rename of the song categories? It's a big job. I keep stumbling upon other problematic categories like this one Category:Canadian sound artists. It's not linked directly to the Canadian music project. I'll ask Bearcat about it. Maybe I should finish my work on the albums categories? I'm of the opinion that if there's, for example a cat "Tweeenie pop metal fluff albums by Canadian artists", we/I need to make sure that there is a corresponding cat "Canadian pop metal fluff musical groups". Would the end of March 2012 work for you? That's just me picking a date out of the air as I've got a few things on the go now. Let me know, thanks Argolin (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

strange behavior of Diff page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotel_Paper&curid=843419&diff=478837370&oldid=476783854
Here's one of your revision. Take a look at line 69. What's the difference??? Pagen HD (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sister-links listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Sister-links. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Sister-links redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ebonics external links

I'm not sure where to go with this edit. Do you think you could elaborate your concerns more explicitly in the article's talk page? Thanks. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to thank you for placing this notice on my Talk Page, as it allowed me the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Thank you also for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. However, in this particular case, I think that your efforts were somewhat misguided. I honestly do not believe that this was an article that merited deletion. Thanks again for sending me this notice. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy I'm glad that you were notified (by WP:TWINKLE) and I'm glad that you were so thoughtful and gracious in your response. Clearly, the majority agree with your assessment... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I never heard of TWINKLE before. What is that ... and what does it have to do with the proposed deletion? I read the link, but I did not see how TWINKLE has anything to do with proposed deletions. Is TWINKLE some type of system that notified me, when you proposed deleting that article? And, if so, how/why did TWINKLE select me to receive notification? How does all this work? I never heard of this before, so this is all new to me. Please let me know. Thanks! As I said, I read that link ... but I could not understand what the TWINKLE link had to do with notifying me of the proposed deletion of that Academy Award age list. Thanks for any information or insight that you can offer! Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle This is a script that puts little tabs at the top of the page to provide extra functionality. As you can already see, on this page you have "edit this page", "talk", "history", "move", etc. Twinkle adds others like "xfd"--which allows me to mark articles, categories, templates, files, etc. for deletion. One of the additional functions is notifying the creators of this content. Consequently, I chose the article for deletion, but Twinkle did the work of notifying you. There are no bots or scripts that run around deleting content--it is always decided by actual human beings--so you don't need to worry about your contributions magically disappearing. Please let me know if you need any help in the future or if this was confusing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that makes sense. So, whom exactly does Twinkle notify, in the event of a proposed deletion? Just the creator of the article? Or other editors as well? I am trying to figure out why I (specifically) was notified. Is it because I created the article? Because I am a frequent contributor? Or what? In other words, what are the criteria that causes someone to be notified by TWINKLE, when an article gets proposed for deletion? Thanks! Please reply at my Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For album ratings hyphen-to-minus sign updates, please beware false positives

Hi, Koavf. It looks as though you are using AWB on music album articles to convert letter ratings with hyphens to letter ratings with minus signs (A- to A−, say). Please be careful, as you seem to be snagging some false positives. I noticed and corrected these two examples 1, 2. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Category talk:Israeli electricians

Category talk:Israeli electricians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Israeli electricians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Category talk:Israeli electricians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Geewhiz (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Template:Rating error"

[1] What kind of error were You talking about? It works just fine. SpiderMum (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

null edits

this was a mistake. sorry if it caused a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

AWB caution

please watch carefully with editing file names [2] this breaks the link as the file name is 'broke' Skier Dude (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please date your tags

Please add properly dated tags if you tag articles. Otherwise "helpful pixie bot" does it for you, in yet another edit, and causes edit conflicts with those correcting the problems. Better to respond here so the conversation is in one place, please. --Mirokado (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably not I'm sorry if this comes across as me being a jerk, but this likelihood is so remote that it's just not worth it to me. I've added tags over a hundred thousand times and adding the additional date parameter every time will add up to several man-hours for a pretty marginal benefit. I understand what you're saying, but the amount of effort that I would put into adding "|date=March 2012" over and over again far outweighs the potential for edit conflicts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can probably see that saying, by tagging an article, "I think somebody else should tidy this article up" while also saying "but I don't have time to make my own edits properly" is inconsistent at the least. Pretty well any assisting tool will add the date for you, Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Tag for example. If you copy and paste from a cheat list you only have to update it once a month. I suppose you might type the tags in by hand every time but that is an awful lot of typing...

I agree that edit conflicts won't be all that common, although it has happened the last two times I responded to a tag. Perhaps more serious is that by forcing over a hundred thousand extra bot edits you are cluttering user watchlists and probably reducing the effectiveness of your tagging (the watchlist message changes from "the article needs more references" or whatever to "somebody added an incomplete tag").

Thanks though for tagging Gaza Flotilla Raid. Most of my edits there have been completing refs, and people had added some more bare links since I last checked, so that did draw my attention. Reflinks was my friend. --Mirokado (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Raskulls edits

I don't mean to be direct, but can you explain the removal of the {{ratings}} template for the Gaming Bits review score? WikiProject Video games' standards are that we follow the reception format for the site. In this case, Gaming Bits uses the starts and not numerical representation. Per WP:3RR I won't revert your edits until there's a consensus, but I don't understand why it was changed. --Teancum (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind - I see now that it only works in multiples of 0.5. --Teancum (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions in the Bible that need to be Adressed

You seem like quite the well-educated christian so I thought I'd see if you had an answer to a question of mine. I myself am a Christian and a vegetarian (although I do still consume dairy and egg products). (Mostly because I just dislike the taste of most meats. Also because if I did eat meat I'd always find myself questioning and worrying about whether or not the person that cooked the meat (even if it was myself) cooked it sufficiently thoroughly for all the parasites that may have been present in the animal before it was harvested for meat in question to be destroyed) Recently I've been studying the Bible trying to really find precisely what Jesus original preached and what truly is the Word of God and in the process of studying the Bible I've uncovered some arguments brought together by atheists that in effect are designed to show contradictions in the Bible. I realise atheists tend to go on and on about supposed 'contradictions' that they see that us Christian can pretty easily refute and reason our way out of, but these contradictions are very difficult to argue with.

One of these arguments is that the two genealogies given of Joseph (and it clearly says Joseph) in Matthew and Luke directly contradict each other. Another is the issue of how many times the cock crowed before Peter's third denial of Jesus. In Mark it says twice, whereas in the other Gospels it says once. However I note that some early Greek manuscripts of the Markan reference to how many times the cock crowed in fact omit the Greek equivalent for twice. That is some early manuscripts don't say the cock crowed twice but just say the cock crowed and in which case you're free to assume the amount of times the cock crows that best fits with the other Gospels. However I have one last contradiction that I find very difficult to argue with. In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus' crucifixion happens the day after a Passover feast (which is popularly dubbed "the Last Supper") whereas in John it happens the day before (or in Preparation) of the Passover week (However in fairness after where in John it says about the Passover (if this helps you devise a logical reason for this) it says that the day of Jesus' crucifixion was also the day before the Sabbath (I believe if anything I can tell you at this point in time that may help you construct an logical and reasonable argument to reconcile this apparent contradiction, I believe it would be this because I hear when the Passover and Sabbaths occur close to each other the traditions/laws changes).

My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fuse809 Time of Comment being finalised: 3:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

sandra fluke

are you going to stop removing my editions without explanation or do we need further dispute resolution? Paintedxbird (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean how are you edit warring? you keep removing what my contributions without citing any reasons after i asked for them. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

why do you think linking a person involved in campaigning for reproductive rights and health and who is notable for it should not be under a category related to that? how is that "overly broad" rather than simply accurate? Paintedxbird (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

she's claimed to stand for women's rights and equality many times and has also been described as such by many commentators. that's a synonymous with feminism. she also had her degree from cornell in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/03/us-usa-contraception-obama-idUSTRE8211Q120120303 and http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-02/politics/31115859_1_rush-limbaugh-contraception-democratic-women (respectively) Paintedxbird (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

i'd like to say so, but it's just a label isn't it. people call themselves things all the time. it's their actions you have to judge. i mean sarah palin calls herself a feminist. not many people agree with her though. Paintedxbird (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

yeah, but i wasn't sure you'd agree. Paintedxbird (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

why's that if you accept she a feminist? Paintedxbird (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

well yeah i'd find a subcategory. what's wrong with the sources? Paintedxbird (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

so why have you removed the american feminists category again? it's mentioned in the page now. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

nevermind. saw it wrong. =) Paintedxbird (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

List(s) of mathematics articles/topics

I noticed the page was moved, but I think the that lists of mathematics topics makes things a little confusing, so I opened a discussion here with no prejudice about the move you proposed for list of mathematics articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Magnapop_2010.jpg

Hi, can you please look this nomination and about the comments as I am not so good to reply that comment.commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Magnapop_2010.jpg --Yjenith (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Orwell

That's great, I look forward to seeing your contributions.--Skittles the hog (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlos "Caique" Elias

I believe you have incorrectly marked the Carlos "Caique" Elias page for speedy deletion. I have noted in the talk page why the subject of this page is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. He is one of a very small number of BJJ red and black belts in the world and one of the original students of Helio Gracie. He has placed and competed in the Brazilian nationals. He is one of only a handful (fewer than 5) red and black belts actively teaching in North America and he has spawned a network of over 15 BJJ academies world wide. He is already mentioned in the Gracie Humaitá article as a famous student of this original academy. Cjjusa1 (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathy Simms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathy Simms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Simms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow the Boys (1963 film/song)

I note you have re-instated the split tag that I removed. If you wish to have a discussion about it, then may I suggest that you put a note on the talk page. On the other hand, if you think it is obvious the article should be split then why not be bold and carry out the split? Op47 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections whatsoever. Please carry out the split. Op47 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please propose category improvements with editors first

Hi Koavf!

You have expertise in categories, an important skill. However, your approach of templating categories seems to be a waste of community time.

Why not simply note a problem with an existing category, and possibly suggest an alternative, preferably after having taken a few minutes to read the main article? Just write your note on the talk page of the creator! :)

Most of the time, you are making valuable suggestions, that can receive immediate agreement from all. There is no need to involve other editors when you and the creator can quickly reach consensus. Doesn't that seem respectful of the community's time?

Please reply here.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasting time First off, I use WP:TWINKLE for these tags--I rarely, if ever, see the creators' talk pages. I can't imagine how having a discussion about these categories on a single users' talk page would be more efficient than going to CfD... How would that work exactly? Renaming or deleting categories requires admin involvement anyway, so it would inevitably go to CFD. Am I missing something here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koavf,

Twinkle privileges have been revoked, you know.

You are wasting the community's time by asking for deliberation and input into renaming categories, which can easily be handled by discussion between you and the editor. You are not respecting others' time.

You should try to get consensus with the creators, and then ask an administrator to implement a consensus decision, rather than tying up the noticeboard with your mountain of requests. You can also ask for administrator help by using the template Template:Admin help, of course. No need to go to the noticeboard.

Of course, go to the noticeboard if you cannot reach consensus and the renaming is important. (Please avoid trivia that does not materially help the encyclopedia.)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm butting in but I am going to do it. I don't think there is anything problematic or out-of-line with Koavf's actions. He is not posting to a "noticeboard", really—it's not like a report for admin action. He's making a formal nomination for community discussion. His approach is actually the preferred approach, because it involves more members of the community than just two—thus, we're far more likely to get a feel for what the community consensus is on the issue by having a broader discussion. On the other hand, making comments about a user and implying that his behaviour is block-worthy, as here, could be seen as less than ideal behaviour. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Good Olfactory!

You may butt in, implementing your stated preference for community discussions even when two editors suffice to resolve an outstanding issue, in public and on Wiki.

Productive editors discuss things on talk pages first, rather than using noticeboards. Your principle suggests moving this discussion to ANI, where we could have more community input.

Cannot you see the wisdom of first discussing things here, before wasting others' time at ANI, for example.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, your statement about "implying" is erroneous.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What? I have Twinkle--I'm using it now. Also, I don't think it's more productive to find consensus on two talk pages and then take it to CfD anyway. You haven't told me why that's preferable. And exactly whose time is wasted? Everyone who posts to CfD does so because he wants to--no one is obliged to give input there. I just don't understand at all what your point is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that others were sentient beings with concerns of their own and perhaps other interests than kibitzing on the output from your Twinkle sessions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, there's a major difference between posting something at discussion at WP:CFD and posting something at WP:ANI. The two processes are not comparable. Different users like to work in different ways, and I wouldn't criticise Koavf for choosing to work how he works. I don't think he's wasting anyone's time—users who want to participate will participate, and those who don't want to will not. I realise it can hurt or be troubling if something you create gets nominated for alternation or deletion, but that's part of the deal with creating WP content. Anyone can come along and propose alterations or deletion, and ultimately it is the community that gets to decide, not solely the creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What? Now I'm even more confused. You're obviously mad at me and being rude--although I really can't understand how or why--and you're spreading across my talk, your talk, and CfD. What is your problem with me? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that not with you but with your behavior, which includes

• labeling me with a vandal template that invited any administrator to remove my 20 thousand or so edits, most of which have not been automated spinning-wheels, btw
• proposing a rename of a category that corrected a misnaming of a living artist, and still failing to apologize for such laziness or fatuity in editing,
• Reposting a stub template on an article that doubled in size since 2007, with substantial editing by me, despite your obvious ignorance about the scope of the topic, etc.
• Your continued failure to see any point to any of my comments. In contrast, Good OLfactory disagrees with me but notes that he understands at least some part of a few of my concerns.

Does that answer your question, sufficiently?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No First off, most of those things you listed came after my post above, so I can't see how they were relevant. The {{Vandal}} template is used all of the time as a username internal link templates. I didn't invite anyone to nuke all your edits--it's just one of several links that's generated by that template. It's the only one whose name I could recall off-hand.

The category renaming is entirely within process. What's not is emptying categories manually that are at CfD and creating new ones. If you have a problem with CfD, that's completely fine--go ahead and propose some change to that system. Wikipedia operates by consensus and if you have a better way to discuss categories, then I'm all for it.

If you don't think the article is a stub at 1.8 kb, then how big does it have to be before it's no longer a stub? A stub could be double a small number and still be a stub.

It's not that I'm trying to be belligerent--I honestly don't understand you a majority of the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of redirect template

This removal was uncommented. Why did you do it? Josh Parris 09:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll RFD the incorrect case one. A comment with your edit would be helpful. Josh Parris 09:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Both redirects have an edit history; they won't be deleted at RFD. Abandoning. Josh Parris 10:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for adding the WikiProject Alabama project banner to the articles and categories that have been missed by the bots. It is much appreciated. Altairisfar (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

reminder

Hello Koavf,

a friendly reminder (from {{vandal}}):

This user information template is intended only for use when reporting accounts or IPs who are vandalising Wikipedia, particularly those making large numbers of rapid vandal edits. It contains a link to Special:Nuke which facilitates reverting mass edits made in rapid succession. It should not be used where the editor in question is not making vandal edits. Alternative user information templates are available by clicking Show in the box below.

The "show" box mentioned above offers several alternatives, e.g. {{User link}}, {{User0}}, {{UserSummary}}, et cet.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The spirit of the text that I quoted existed before, but the text actually appeared only now. Sasha (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-anomymus

I believe the first person to get 500,000 edits plus wishes to be anomymus, and not to be blatantly mentioned. Why else would he remove his name from the list of editors with most edits? 203.11.71.124 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If that was me, it was because it was being used to attack me. Actually I think it is rather a fun fact, but if it detracts from building the encyclopaedia, better to keep quiet about it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Album category templates

Two templates ({{albums category}} and {{album label category}} were created for what was basically a one-time runthrough by a bot. No one knows about the templates, there's no mention anywhere about them, no one is instructed to use them on WP:ALBUMS, they're just added into about 1500 categories out of about 15,500 possible categories only in late December 2010/January 2011. The templates have been virtually ignored by its creator since using them for this one-time task. No attempt was made to check the main article links as many are red while others went to incorrect pages due to an ambiguous name, nothing when it would have been appropriate was default sorted and no artist nationality or genre categories were added. It was a bit irresponsible, so I try to spend some time now and then to go back to this project to 1) check that there is an article for the band or label, 2) look for and add albums that weren't in the category already, 3) put in a default sort if needed and 4) add other appropriate parent categories (for artist albums cats). As I have been going through them, I have also reverted the template to the standard way they're done without changing any content. When the template is recognized and recommended by the Albums Project, I'll have no problem using the template in a responsible manner. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone could sensibly do some documentation. It would have been trivial to have a script write "Bleurg is a category about the record label flarg which..." with the necessary trimmings. The idea of a template is to make life easier for these things known as humans. Then they can get on with writing articles about record labels (or deleting them). Oh yes, it also makes things like changes in style one-edit jobs, and make s translation to other languages trivial. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Oh yes, and the template also puts the category in Category:Empty categories if it is empty, which Star's replacement doesn't. (With minor artists, the album pages are reasonably likely to be deleted or folded back into the artist article.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Templates are good for humans when humans know about them and/or are instructed to use them. These seems to have been created on a whim to clean up all the red-linked categorization of albums in artist/label categories. It was nice to have that done, but you just left it at that and it left work to be done with the cleanup of those as decribed above which I've volunteered to do. ALL empty categories, not just those that use these (and only these) two templates, end up being listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, and they end up being listed there faster than the days it takes to be listed in Category:Empty categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited We All Raise Our Voices to the Air (Live Songs 04.11–08.11), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (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) 10:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Coltrane/12 Steps

Hi, clearly I'm new here. Can you explain how I'd render my edit usable?

What I posted was a factual similarity, sans comment--or so I tried. Help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am Peripatetic (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So, simply noting the correlation is original research, got it.

I don't know of any scholarly research about the 12-step connection--but, given that he notes the year he got clean, and then speaks in 12-step jargon, it seems plausible. I do think it's a significant, and valid, addition to the dialogue.

There are numerous single-source theories in the Coltrane entry. Were there scholarship to cite, it might be along the lines of this sentence from the entry: "Biographer Lewis Porter has suggested, somewhat controversially, that the cause of Coltrane's illness was hepatitis, although he also attributed the disease to Coltrane's heroin use." Say, theoretically, "Jazz critic John Q Public has suggested, somewhat controversially, that there are similarities between ALS's liner notes and the 12 steps of AA."--?

Like Porter's theory, would this be another instance of a single scholar making a novel connection that's worthy of mention? If liver disease has a common relationship to IV drug use, would it be valid to note that "spiritual awakening", "grace of god", "humbly asked"--in conjunction with his clean date--might be a correlation?

I also noticed that Yentob's diagnosis of Coltrane/African Orthodox church as valid is a de facto bestowment of bona-fides in the entry. Also a single scholar.

Again, I don't know of any scholarship on the topic. 12-step programs are anonymous. Coltrane is increasingly claimed as a fellow-traveler by twelve-steppers, but it's correlation and conjecture.

Categories for suicide-related pages

You recently made some changes to categories for a number of suicide-related pages. I'm guessing – but only guessing, because you never provided explanatory edit summaries – that your thinking goes along the lines of not having person-related categories on pages about events. Although, strictly speaking, I can see some logic to that, I'd like to ask you to consider that, per WP:BLP1E, we make such pages about the suicides rather than as biographic pages, but nonetheless, those suicide pages are where our readers go when they want to read about the person, so the categories apply to the entire content of the page, not just to the page title.

When you recently made those edits, I and another editor reverted you, and indicated in our edit summaries that we objected to the lack of an explanation for the changes you had made. There is a discussion thread at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi#Categories where multiple editors discussed the matter, and the consensus seems to be that we disagree with your edits.

I see now that you have made a huge number of automated edits today, including reverting the reverts, again without an explanation by you. Per the existing consensus so far, I am now going to revert you again, and I ask that you please explain your reasoning on article talk pages if you still disagree with me, before reverting again, and that you please respect the consensus of other editors if we continue to disagree with you. Thank you. (I'll watchlist your talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at your comment at the article talk page about categorizing redirects. This is certainly something that reasonable people can discuss. However, you are continuing to mass revert – actually rollback, which is a misuse of the rollback tool when other experienced editors disagree with you – without really engaging with other editors who are disagreeing with you. I understand that you feel that you are familiar with categorization guidelines, but that does not entitle you to treat other editors as though we were vandals. Please slow down, or I will have to take you to dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

True You are certainly correct that your edits are not vandalism and are clearly intended for the betterment of the encyclopedia--in my haste, I have cast them as being mal-intentioned. Please forgive me. That having been said, the guideline on categorizing redirects is clear on this matter. If you really want to discuss this (which is fine), it should be done at the level of a larger guideline rather than a single talk page that discusses one instance of this. If you want to have a centralized discussion on changing the way that we categorize redirects, I will happily participate. Thanks again for posting to my talk and your respectful tone and please accept my apologies for any slight implied by the method by which I reverted your edits. You are clearly a competent and courteous contributor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please return to the discussions about this, they have progressed. Your input would be desirable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As for Death of Jeremiah Duggan, you have now remove all temporal categories, which surely is to the detriment of the encyclopaedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is right about that. I commented about the suicide-related pages, but the issues also come up in regard to other death-related pages. I can see from your many edits today that there are various death and crime related pages where such concerns might arise. I realize that you mean well about these categories, but you really need to be careful when you are making large numbers of automated edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Among all the others, the pages that are of particular concern to me are: Suicide of Tyler Clementi, Suicide of Phoebe Prince, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, Suicide of Dawn-Marie Wesley, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I think it varies from page to page where we stand now, in terms of whether you have been reverted or not, although you reverted me, earlier, in every case. I'm not going to edit war with you, but I really hope that you will reconsider where appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Technicality Your points are well-taken, but I would like to correct you to the extent that I have never made an automated edit at all: every edit I've ever made has had my personal discrimination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I'm confused. You removed category:2003 deaths for Death of Jeremiah Duggan but added it for Jeremiah Duggan, a redirect page. This appears to conflict with the argument you're making at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Maybe you're busy off-wiki (I know I'm about to be) but I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question there when you get a chance. In the meantime, please consider slowing down; it's very hard to keep up with all of your automated edits, and enough editors are raising questions that it might be better to stop and take stock. (AWB, HotCat, etc do facilitate automated edits, btw.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How so? Jeremiah Duggan is a 2003 death. The death of Jeremiah Duggan is not a 2003 death. I don't see how it contradicts my argument--it's an application of it. Also, note that AWB is a tool for semi-automated edits, not automated edits (unless you have a bot account, which I don't and never have.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that you are now running up against 3RR on a lot of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see here You don't need to post this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass decategorisation on Suicide related pages

I have reverted three of your edits to remove categories en masse from articles today. I suggest you seek to build a consensus for your edits. The edit history leads me to draw the conclusion that you may be on some kind of well meaning category editing crusade, but I cannot fathom the rationale for it. Since you've been editing here for many years I can't believe that you are anything other than well intentioned. so what we lack is a good editing rational and edit summary.

If you have a valid reason for the removal of the categories, especially in such quantity, please make that reason clear as a part of your edit summary. Since the edit history of the three files where I reverted your edits shows these edits to be contentious, please build a consensus on each article's talk page before making further category changes to each of them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be charitable one further time. You have been asked to build a consensus and your reversion of my reversion of your edits may have coincided with my message here. But I can tell you clearly as one experienced and pedantic editor to another that I am not viewing your edits with good favour. I have no intention of getting to a reversion war with you, bit I will very soon ask other experienced editors to review what you are doing unless you build consensus. Simply quoting a policy is insufficient. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it so hard to just talk it through til everyone agrees? I have all of the 'Suicide of...' articles in my watchlist and the edit warring is annoying as hell. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes It is--the guideline is very clear on this, so it's a hassle for me to have to talk through what is a very straight-forward matter that affects several articles on the talk page of one of that type of article. Imagine if I had to do this every time I wanted to recategorize a page... These articles should never have been categorized this way in the first place and now it's taking an inordinate amount of effort to undo something that should never have been done. Consensus is fine and appropriate, but the discussion at that talk page is now about something far larger than that article, so it shouldn't happen on that article's talk page--it has implications that are far too broad. Doing that over and over again at each talk page is maddening and undermines the purpose of talk pages in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked. Take it to the article talk pages instead. Dreadstar ☥ 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see here You don't need to post this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I see in another place that you didn't need the warning, and are obviously aware of 3RR and Revert Warring prohibitions, but I felt it only fair to warn you that I would indeed block you if you continued. Dreadstar ☥ 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That you find something maddening is not exclusive you you, you know. I am finding your edits maddening. Others are finding them maddening, too. Please remember that you are an editor here like any other editor, and your edits are subject to the same scrutiny as any other editor's. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)