User talk:Koavf/Archive007
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
W.A. Chip & Pulp Co.
Its registered name is "W.A. Chip & Pulp Co. Pty Ltd"[1] I see you've moved it away from its correct title twice already. Please don't do so a third time. Hesperian 05:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I would suspect this is just a product of different Manuals of Style. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Hesperian 06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- MoSes My guess is that Wikipedia simply has different naming conventions (e.g. the form "X. Y. Lastname") than this registry. For instance, the New York Times always refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the "F.B.I." rather than the "FBI." I find it doubtful that the company is deliberately named "W.A. Chip..." but it's possible. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. The ASIC registry isn't just any old registry. It is the authoritative one, as ASIC is the agency you go to when you want to register a business name in Australia. Even if the company had intended to include the space, their official name is by definition what ASIC says it is.
- As for you finding it doubtful, I think your judgment has been clouded by your personal opinion. There is abundant evidence on various talk pages and in your own talk archives, of people telling you that "W. A." isn't the only normative form for abbreviations, and "W.A." is commonly used and perfectly acceptable. In the face of that barrage, it beggars belief that you still cling to the fantasy that no-one would write "W.A." on purpose.
- Hesperian 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Intentions The argument you give for this example is persuasive, so I'm willing to leave it where it is; it seems like you have some rationale for your claim. Others don't (e.g. "J. R. R. Tolkein" looks ugly and "J.R.R. Tolkein" looks nice.) There is a naming standard for just these examples, and I've happily reverted my moves when someone has brought a compelling case for contradicting that standard (e.g. C.C. Chapman, who e-mailed me himself.) I'm not inflexible; I'd just like some substantive reason to break a simple rule that lends consistency to Wikipedia. In this case, you've offered one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- That all sounds eminently sensible. I support imposing consistency on the way Wikipedia forms abbreviations, but when reporting abbreviations formed elsewhere, such as in a book title or a company name, we must of course report accurately, and resist the temptation to fiddle about for our own stylistic ends. Hesperian 11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fiddling Sure, sure. If this is the official registry, then that is the name of the article, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- That all sounds eminently sensible. I support imposing consistency on the way Wikipedia forms abbreviations, but when reporting abbreviations formed elsewhere, such as in a book title or a company name, we must of course report accurately, and resist the temptation to fiddle about for our own stylistic ends. Hesperian 11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Intentions The argument you give for this example is persuasive, so I'm willing to leave it where it is; it seems like you have some rationale for your claim. Others don't (e.g. "J. R. R. Tolkein" looks ugly and "J.R.R. Tolkein" looks nice.) There is a naming standard for just these examples, and I've happily reverted my moves when someone has brought a compelling case for contradicting that standard (e.g. C.C. Chapman, who e-mailed me himself.) I'm not inflexible; I'd just like some substantive reason to break a simple rule that lends consistency to Wikipedia. In this case, you've offered one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- MoSes My guess is that Wikipedia simply has different naming conventions (e.g. the form "X. Y. Lastname") than this registry. For instance, the New York Times always refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the "F.B.I." rather than the "FBI." I find it doubtful that the company is deliberately named "W.A. Chip..." but it's possible. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Hesperian 06:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Protected Areas of Oregon
You recently made an edit to {{Protected Areas of Oregon}} but I couldn't figure out what the intent of your change was, mostly because searching for similarly named templates doesn't work too well. Your change made the template nonfunctional, so I reverted it. Maybe you'd like to revisit it? —EncMstr 06:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Kat fixed it; thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
T.G. Richards and Company Store
Hey, is there a standard for how many articles link to an article before it can be de-orphanned? This seems like a superfluous tag to me, an article's worth shouldn't be based on how many articles link to it. Murderbike 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Superfluous standards I usually tag articles that have four or less links in the main namespace. I honestly do not know what, if any, number is the cut-off for orphaning. This article only has one, so it is certainly an orphan. I agree that orphans are neither inherently worthy or unworthy of much of anything, but orphans are bad because they are more difficult to find and they are disconnected information from similar such topics. The article per se can be good, and that's fine and well, but one of the nice things about hypertext is how documents are connected. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I happened to look at some other stuff after I wrote you, and it seemed that "more than two" was an acceptable amount of links for being a non-orphan. Meh, as much as I think it's ridiculous, I'll try to work links to this article into something. Cheers, Murderbike 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Optimum The best solution is templates, if you ask me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms
I see you pinged our page on references and tone. It's being put together by a team of Jews, Christians, Messianics, and a Muslim, and we'll be working on references as we go -- so, references won't be a problem. Tone, on the other hand, is a puzzle. We don't have a thesis and are simply hashing out what various words mean to each group, and neutral terms that don't mislead anyone. Can you help us figure out what you are looking for on "tone" so that we don't shoot in the dark trying to provide it? Thanks.
Also, we'll be cross linking to pertinent pages as we go, and the usage of the terms will be readily apparent in the linked articles. Tim 22:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Rename Israel and nukes
Hello Koavf, I noticed that you recently changed Nuclear weapons and Israel to Israel and nuclear weapons. However, when I created the article with its former title, I was merely following the established precedent with Nuclear weapons and the United States and Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. In fact, I think this format of naming is pretty common (see all articles under Military history by country and List of militaries by country, which place the noun before the country name). Joshdboz (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Pronoun capitalization
Just letting you know that I reverted your capitalization of pronouns. Per the WP:MOS: Pronouns and possessives referring to figures of veneration are not capitalized in Wikipedia articles, even when they traditionally are in a religion's scriptures. Thanks for understanding.-Andrew c [talk] 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to draw your attention to User_talk:Peter_Ballard#B_vs._b, a conversation I had with another user a while ago about "biblical" vs. "Biblical". My position is that both are generally acceptable, however, editors should be discouraged from switching between the two. I look at it as a case of "if it's not broken, then don't fix it". -Andrew c [talk] 16:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Indispensible/Indispensable
Hi. A tip for when you use AWB is to watch out for "spelling" mistakes. On History of the Falkland Islands you changed the name of a ship Indispensible to Indispensable. I've changed it back. Justin talk 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I kind of like the red behind the flag but the blue behind the picture is sort of useless and in a certain way distracting from the picture itself. Why not leave the red as is but make the rest silver? HoosierState 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- See if you like it now. I tried what you suggested and it didn't look so hot, clashes too much. I understand you like the flag colors but the flag itself can demonstrate that. HoosierState 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Myanmar/Burma categories
Hello. I see that you tagged Category:Telecommunications in Myanmar and others with a speedy delete message "Move to Burma". These needs to be listed at WP:CFD to be renamed. If you have any questions, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but in view of all the back-and-forth stuff, this needs to be done properly. I started the nomination here. It's just a case of adding the rest of the categories and tagging them with {{subst:cfm|new category|Burma}} if the new category exists and {{subst:cfr|new category|Burma}} if it doesn't. I'll do that for all the ones listed there already. This ok? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Joan Armatrading
I reverted you here as I couldn't see what you were trying to do. Perhaps I was a little hasty. What were you trying to do? --John (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. --John (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
About the article of Religions by country
Hi Koavf! Please tell me why you has added (cleanup) onReligions by country because what?Some examples please and if you could, please improve it.Thanks!
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Western Sahara is an area under dispute with Morocco and SADR.
The flag u are trying to make is the SADR flag, WS don't have flag.
The Flag must be the flag of UN or deleted.
see: Flag of Western Sahara.
Vispec (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- UN flag? Vispec, as you can see on the talk page at that same article, the move was a contentious POV fork (actually an example of copying and pasting an entire article.) Changing around file names and especially doing silly things like making the flag of Western Sahara be the flag of Morocco or the United Nations won't accomplish anything. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I was participing always in the Araic wikipedia so I didn't know what was happening here, I saw discussion pages and I notice that you and User:Reisio don't know the different between (Sahrawi Republic) and (Western Sahara: Territory disputed between Sahrawi Republic and Morocco) or you are just pro polisario and trying to forgery facts, anyway reading the articals may help you, and western sahara don't have flag, there's only SADR flag and Morocco flag, try to understand, peace. Vispec (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right Telling me I don't understand is pedantic and offensive. You don't understand how Wikipedia and its Commons work, apparently, nor do you understand basic rules of courtesy. If you want to post on talk pages, that would be nice. If you want to post helpful messages - not outright lies and slander - on user talk pages, that would be nice. If you want to keep on pushing your pro-Moroccan agenda, forging licenses on Commons, and creating sock puppets to fight your battles, that's not nice. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that the people of WS are colonized by Morocco, It's your POV and I honestly respect it, what I don't like is to see your POV in the articles and to start an editwar with people want to clarify the truth without propaganda: (User:Wikima, User:A Jalil), and why you want to delete [image:Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic] and we still discussing about the right name of the flag? that make it look like you want to force the flag that I think it's wrong and pass over a lot of people who share my POV.
- please correct me if I'm wrong: the role of Wikipedia is to show the truth as it is, and only the reader have to decide what is true and what is wrong. but as I see, you are trying to mix two different things to show WS as a country and not disputed area.
- In the whole history, colonized people didn't need to invent facts to get free if they are not, showing the truth as it's is the only way to defend what you think is right. Vispec (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Opinion? The fact that Western Sahara is colonized is not a matter of debate or taste, really. That having been said, I don't recall declaring to you that the territory was colonized by Morocco, so I don't see how it's germane to anything. If you think that Jalil and Wikima "clarify the truth without propaganda," you're out of your mind. Why do I want to delete Commons:image:Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg? Because, as I have already stated, it is a redundant image, it has a fraudulent license, and it has a malformed name. Western Sahara is in, fact a country (e.g. List of countries.) I honestly have no idea how to respond to your last statement. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right Telling me I don't understand is pedantic and offensive. You don't understand how Wikipedia and its Commons work, apparently, nor do you understand basic rules of courtesy. If you want to post on talk pages, that would be nice. If you want to post helpful messages - not outright lies and slander - on user talk pages, that would be nice. If you want to keep on pushing your pro-Moroccan agenda, forging licenses on Commons, and creating sock puppets to fight your battles, that's not nice. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I was participing always in the Araic wikipedia so I didn't know what was happening here, I saw discussion pages and I notice that you and User:Reisio don't know the different between (Sahrawi Republic) and (Western Sahara: Territory disputed between Sahrawi Republic and Morocco) or you are just pro polisario and trying to forgery facts, anyway reading the articals may help you, and western sahara don't have flag, there's only SADR flag and Morocco flag, try to understand, peace. Vispec (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Flag of X That flag was created to be the flag of the territory that comprises Western Sahara. Furthermore, it is used as a flag of the Sahrawi Republic, the Polisario Front, and the Front Polisario Khat al-Shahid (possibly among others), so renaming it to one of those entities is arbitrary and not in keeping with every other "Flag of X" image and article. Koavf 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- This's the problem: As I know, the flag was created then adobted by Polisario that claim WS.
- Do you have sources that the flag was created as a flag of the territory?
- in Spanish Wikipedia I read this:
- La bandera de la República Árabe Saharaui Democrática (RASD) es la misma que utilizó el Frente Polisario desde 1973 en su lucha contra la colonización española.
- The flag of SADR is the same that Polisario Font used since 1973 in it fight against spanish colonization.
- and Merry Christmas. Vispec (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't know how to answer your question. As I stated before, the flag was initially one for an independence movement/political party. It now represents several things, primarily the region of Western Sahara. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
LDS Church articles
Please don't move any more articles that are disambiguated with "Foo (LDS Church)" to "Foo (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)". The accepted WP naming convention is to use "(LDS Church)" to DAB articles that are solely about this church. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints). Consensus must be gained on proposed naming convention changes there before being implemented. This has been a controversial topic in the past and it's best to follow correct procedure. Snocrates 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
O.A. Cargill
The article on Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice O. A. Cargill which you tagged as "orphaned" in October, 2007, has developed several other issues since then. If you have any thoughts on how to fix these problems and improve the article, they would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin
Koafv, you've done an excellent job with the additions and edits to the Led Zeppelin article. MegX (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of transsexual details on Men who have sex with Men
Your contributions to Men who have sex with men were inappropriate. Post-operative male to female transsexuals cannot have any sex that is more risky than natal women, as well, by definition anyone who has sex exclusively with women, whether male, female-to-male, male-to-female or female is by definition not a man who has sex with men. The MSM category is a risk-factor group, and not a political division or euphemism for "gay" or "homosexual". As such, all changes to the article should be made from a medical risk-assessment position, rather than any person opinions or motives. Your edits contradicted medical fact in the area of HIV-risk-assessment and have therefore been reverted.
- Transsexuals If "post-operative male-to-female transsexuals" are women, then they would be excluded by the first criterion, if they are men, they are included in the second, and vice versa. Consequently, there is no need to explicitly mention them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read the request, I'm confused as to what precisely needs changing, since both sides of the arrow appear to be the same. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops That was a silly mistake of mine; I don't know exactly how that happened. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin album templates
It appears that you made these. Why? What point do they serve? Template:Physical Graffiti -Freekee (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorta I made some of them after I saw that other albums already had them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound like a jerk about it, but they seem to serve no purpose. They consist of nothing but a track listing, and so are redundant to the track listing in the article. I'm going to ask what people think of them, at WP:ALBUM, and maybe see about deleting them, depending on what people say. -Freekee (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure I have no real emotional investment in the templates, but it seems silly for Led Zeppelin (album), Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III to have them but not Led Zeppelin IV, Houses of the Holy, etc. For what it's worth, they function like footer templates, which are redundant, but could be useful for navigation purposes. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still asking opinions of others, and even if I do nominate them, other people could vote to keep them. And it would be all such templates, not just the Zep album ones. -Freekee (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure That makes sense. Thanks for the heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure I have no real emotional investment in the templates, but it seems silly for Led Zeppelin (album), Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III to have them but not Led Zeppelin IV, Houses of the Holy, etc. For what it's worth, they function like footer templates, which are redundant, but could be useful for navigation purposes. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound like a jerk about it, but they seem to serve no purpose. They consist of nothing but a track listing, and so are redundant to the track listing in the article. I'm going to ask what people think of them, at WP:ALBUM, and maybe see about deleting them, depending on what people say. -Freekee (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Wall of Shame
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wall of Shame, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall of Shame. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians by number of edits
Your revert is entirely inconsiderate and unhelpful. The page specifically mentions that if I want to remove myself from that list that I am entirely within my rights to do so and add my name to an alternate list so I will excluded next time. FYI, I am Moe Epsilon, the name I removed, and I added it and my new name to the exemption list. I expect you to not remove it again. — Save_Us_229 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you not see User:Moe Epsilon redirects to my userpage? Can you not read edit summaries? Hitting the revert button is not the answer every time. — Save_Us_229 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Invite
.jpg) |
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
A.E. De Silva Sr.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A.E. De Silva Sr., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of A.E. De Silva Sr.. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#Koavf. RFRBot (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've granted your request. This is done on the principle that rollback is easy come and easy go. Please use it wisely! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:E. H. Harriman Award recipients
Category:E. H. Harriman Award recipients, 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. – -- Hi Koavf, Usually it's a lot better to list award-recipients on the award page, rather than using a category to do it. See WP:OCAT#Award winners, and please feel free to join the conversation or ask me if you have questions. --Lquilter (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories up for speedy renaming
You don't have to manually create new categories when they are nominated for renaming. After two days the categories will be generated and there are bots that can perform all the migrations. In fact, it's probably better if you don't do this once the nomination is made since it violates proper procedures. Snocrates 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The First Letter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The First Letter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Saudi Arabian Barnstar | |
| For cleanning up several articles of WP:KSA A M M A R 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks Recognition always feels nice. Thanks, Ammar. As a friendly suggestion, you may want to archive this page; it's getting a little too big for some browsers to load and edit effectively. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeh thats a good idea but i donno how :) A M M A R 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done , thanks boss A M M A R 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
addition of Navayāna (Dalit Buddhist movement) to Template:Buddhism's "Branches" section?
Hi Justin - I was wondering if you could participate in a thread I've started on the Template:Buddhism's talk page at Template_talk:Buddhism#Navay.C4.81na_.28Dalit_Buddhist_movement.29_added_to_.22Branches.22_section.3F regarding your recent addition to that template. I'd appreciate your educating me and/or engaging in dialogue that would help the WP Buddhism community better understand and assess your rationale. I hope you are doing well. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response and I believe I understand your reasoning. It does appear to be a kind of "fall through the cracks" matter -- given, as you indicate, Navayana, doesn't fall within the three traditional branches and yet is not truly a "branch" itself. Guess if no one else barks, it's all good. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you post messages????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Annoyingdude117 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's with the speedy deletion of categories?
I can see what you're trying to do with Category:Mahabharata epic, but is it too much to ask for procedure to be followed? See my comments at Category talk:Mahabharata epic. Snocrates 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. There is a procedure and you need to follow it. Bypassing procedure is not "being bold". I will revert any changes made in this way. Dropping "epic" from the name does not even meet a speedy criterion. Snocrates 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Eastern Christianity template
Could you revisit your edits to Template:Eastern Christianity please? I believe something you did to it is screwing with the way it collates. Take a look at Old Church Slavonic for an example of mentioned screwed-upedness. Thanks. Atelaes (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's annoying I'm taking a look. If I can't fix it, I'll revert. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's weird As the page loaded in another tab, the layout of the page was fine. Huh. What browser are you using (I have Firefox 2.x)? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11. If I had to guess, I'd say it was that width parameter you put in. I've had odd results with that stuff before where two templates will have the same width parameter and yet will be completely different. But, I don't have much experience with right aligned templates (we don't really use them on Wiktionary, where I'm primarily active). I guess I'll let you fiddle with it (no point in adding the mess of two users screwing simultaneously with the same template), but I'll keep an eye on my talk page. If you give up let me know, and I'll see what I can do. I will, however, take a more in-depth look at the code and give you a holler if I have any insights. Atelaes (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted your changes. I have no idea why having a set width would affect how the text wraps, but I figure we should at least have the thing work properly until a better solution can be devised. Hope this isn't too bold. :\ Atelaes (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Judaism cannot be aligned with Christianity
Hi Koovaf: While your efforts with the {{Books of the Bible}} temaplate are commendable, the policy of the Judaism and Christianity editors over the years has been not to attempt meshing the two religions on articles and into templates or other such efforts at "combining" what are really to opposing and contradictory religions. It also risks problems with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have made the appropriate changes on the template. See my comment on the talk page there [2] that: "Kindly keep this template as a reflection of a Christian POV. It would be a fallacy for it to convey Judaism's POV side by side with Christianity's since Judaism opposes the Christian view that there can be a 'new testament' because there is no such possibility or phenomenon in Judaism. Judaism regards the notion of any 'New Testament' as heretical and blasphemous." Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Responded Thanks for your note, IZAK; I have responded on the template's talk. We can keep all discussion there, as I watch that page, but if you need to reach me personally, feel free to post here, IM, or e-mail (you can even call if you'd like.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
SatyrBot
Thanks for the comments! I've responded on the bot's page, but the short version is "Oops! I'll try to fix that right away!" =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Books of the bible
I enjoy the template. But, there are a few minor things that I would change. I think that it would be better if the Deuterocanonical books were separated from the rest of the Apocrypha. Also, is there any reason that the Additions to Daniel are listed? I would think that just the link to the Additions page would be fine.
I brought this here because the template's talk page seemed kind of crowded and I really didn't want to get involved in all of that. I'm happy just to comment from afar. MookieZ (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eels with Strings Live at Town Hall CD.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eels with Strings Live at Town Hall CD.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eels with Strings Live at Town Hall DVD.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eels with Strings Live at Town Hall DVD.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: {{Kosovo-stub}}
We're waaay ahead of you. This matter is already being debated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals - I would ask that any discussion on the matter be continued there. In a nutshell, a template for Kosovo is likely to be created along with other Kosovo-related stub types, once Kosovo is recognised internationally as an independent nation. Given the EU's posityion on Kosovo, this is likely to happen very soon after independence is declared. Until that time, no templates should be made or altered, and even after that time, any templates shopuld still go through the proposal process, to sort out any problems that might arise from them. Given the likelihood of edit-warring during the early days of Kosovo's independence, any templates created are likely to still need protection for a while after that time.
As for the comparisons with other "similar" situations, Palestine is already recognised as independent by a large number of countries and has been for many years (with a considerable number of those countries refusing to recognise iasrael's existence). As for Alabama, countries with very large numbers of stubs are naturally broken down into their stable geopolitical subregions. There are some 10,000 United States stubs, so breaking this country down by subregion became a necessity. With Serbia, there are a few hundred, so splitting off sepearate stub types for Kosovo and Vojvodina has never been a high priority and is, in fact, counter-productive as - if you'll pardon the term - a balkanisation of stub sorting resources. That will, of course, change once Kosovo's independence is ratified. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Palestine is a tricky one - as, for that matter, is Taiwan. But both do have at least some level of recognition from external govenments. I'll admit it's a fairly arbitrary judgement call as far asd stub-sorting is concerned, but it's the only way to stop us being flooded with the likes of Transnistria-stub, Ossetia-stub, NorthCyprus-stub, TamilEelam-stub, etc etc etc, any of which could develop into edit-war templates. FWIW, there are two Kosovo stub types in used (a geo-stub and a bio-stub), though both are currently simply redirects to their European equivalents - I expect that they will become fully-fledged stub types very shortly after independence. (There is also a Kosova-geo-stub template currently on SFD - unless the new country officially changes its name, that's one's a very likely problem as far as neutrality is concerned!) Grutness...wha? 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm. Didn't realise that one still existed - there are a couple of dozen different stub-types which have been deleted in the last couple of years for such territories (in some case, such as TRNC-stub, deleted several times). TRNC-stub, TRNC-geo-stub, Kurdistan-stub, Kurdish-stub, Kurd-politician-stub, Kurdistan-bio-stub, Kurdistan-geo-stub, Kurdistan-politician-stub, Abkhazia-stub, Ossetia-stub, Ossetia-geo-stub, Ossetia-bio-stub, Ossetia-politician-stub, etc... we really don't need any precedents for more of these. In any case, it seems likely that there will be some sort of declaration re Kosovo's independence sometime very soon, so I doubt there'll be too long to wait. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Stories of Hope and Fear.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Stories of Hope and Fear.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Lies, Sissies, and Fiascos - The Best of This American Life.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Lies, Sissies, and Fiascos - The Best of This American Life.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Crimebusters + Crossed Wires - Stories from This American Life.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Crimebusters + Crossed Wires - Stories from This American Life.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shout%21_Factory&diff=192501508&oldid=192501495
I can't spot the difference. Is there a difference? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting me out of my misery. How on earth did you notice the difference in the first place? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
