| Revision as of 21:59, 20 May 2012 editBlackJack (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users100,203 edits problem with section title← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:12, 22 May 2012 edit undoTeflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →UNDUE discussion: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
| Hi, thanks for your mail about your proposal and sorry I didn't get involved but I rarely use the site now as I'm too busy. I see your proposal was in any event rejected which is good because the logic, as a few people pointed out, is in the historical context. I don't do century years. There is a cricket history reason for 1787, etc. Century years look neat but they make no sense. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | Hi, thanks for your mail about your proposal and sorry I didn't get involved but I rarely use the site now as I'm too busy. I see your proposal was in any event rejected which is good because the logic, as a few people pointed out, is in the historical context. I don't do century years. There is a cricket history reason for 1787, etc. Century years look neat but they make no sense. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == UNDUE discussion == | |||
| Hi. I'm looking for an objective opinion for ] on whether certain content in the lead is giving undue weight or not. It's similar to my previous comment. Would you be interested in commenting? ] (]) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:12, 22 May 2012
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| WOW 1 million edits! I feel privileged giving you this barnstar. SupernovaExplosion 09:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
Article
If you have no objection, I'll like to create a mainspace article on you. You have been widely covered in the media. --SupernovaExplosion 09:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Harness Racing vs. Thoroughbred Racing
They're not the same but here you put a thoroughbred tag in on the talk page for a harness racing category. I don't know if the TB project covers harness, but looking around at some other harness racing talk pages, American harness racers is the only one I see with the TB project link on the talk page....William 18:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Respones to edit
We do not categorize by language sung in when the lamnguage in question is the premier language in the place in question. For example, we do not categorize American singers as English-language singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 26
Hi, I noticed that you nominated three large Wikipedias. Such an action almost always fails, as you should know. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Erroneous categories
You tagged this 1970s sports article with Category:English-language albums and Category:2012 albums. Did an automated edit go awry? Maybe there are other mistakes. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You also put The Smashing Pumpkins in the Category "Musical Trios". I would recommend slowing down. Ridernyc (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
From WP:CATEGORY A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristic—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections.
In other words simply because band may have played as a trio for 6 months while they were looking for a drummer there is not justification to put them in the category musical trios. Once again slow down. Ridernyc (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
hEY
Can you link the page where i can request to be an Admin on here! N64dude (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
hi
Would you be willing to change your proposal to merge to Category:Online companies here: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_26? --KarlB (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Here Lies Love article, soundtrack album vs concept album
Hi, you said that the album was a soundtrack album because it was used in a musical and that there are sources in the article? but I cannot find it. I've done my research online and found nothing about Here Lies Love being a musical/broadway play on any theater.
Remember what a soundtrack album is: "any album that incorporates music directly recorded from the soundtrack of a particular feature film or broadway musical". Do not confuse a concept album with a soundtrack album. Soundtracks are those that were used in motion picture, book, television program or video game. Concept albums on the other hand are "unified by a theme, which can be instrumental, narrative, or lyrical." They tend to incorporate a musical-like album with all of its songs contributing to a single overall story of an album.
A good example is Jay-Z's studio album American Gangster (album) which was inspired by film of the same name. Keep in mind that none of its songs were included/played on the film of the same name. It is also considered a 'studio' album and not a soundtrack album for that matter so the same should apply for Here Lies Love.
Hope you understand their differences.Bleubeatle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!!
Thank you for helping me on my article on St. John's Lutheran Church :)Grasch2014 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, really? Seems like you did more... that is what it has on the history though. Thank you always---Grasch2014 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Content dispute
Hi. Would you like to comment at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses Practices
You have recently archived the entire talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices even though some of the threads are not very old. Could you please revert your edit as this was an unnecessary action, perhaps consider a 180d or older archive....thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
GA Notice
| GA Notice |
|---|
| Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Hahc21 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
 ·  ·  · 
|
Tagging with {diffuse}
Why did you tag Category:1960s albums and a few related cats with {diffuse}? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Alt text question
Justin, I saw your post at Template talk:Infobox album and have a question. I frequently add album cover images but don't add alt text. For an album cover would you just put 'image of album x cover art' or actualy describe the image? Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying makes perfect sense, thanks J04n(talk page) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Philatelists
Hi, was this just a slip with HotCat, changing when you meant to add? – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
– Everything That Happens... FAC
Hey Justin, you'll notice that I have opposed the nomination and offered to work with you on a peer review. I think the reason I gave (lots of minor issues) might be the reason you're not attracting many reviewers – it's why I did nothing a month ago when I saw you re-nominated. I scanned the article and saw more issues than I wanted to help you work through in a FAC, but they were all minor, so I was reluctant to oppose. So I ultimately decided to leave it to the more committed reviewers I thought were sure to show up. Of course, if everyone felt that way nothing would get accomplished, which seems to be where we are.
Anyway, if you start the peer review, let me know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Responded.
--Niemti (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey
You can remove this note, because I don't care about it that much actually. I'm done with it, you can just revert if you want, problem solved I guess. --Niemti (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Images
So you're trying to get my images taken down? Why? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A request
I don't care anymore about ANY other categories, but everything under http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_game_characters needs to stay clear of redirects. As it is right now.
We're doing really hard work to have only notable articles in these categories. And every year there are thousands of new games, each featuring multiple individual characters (even hundreds or thousands, in some cases).
Please cooperate. --Niemti (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No, really. We had thousands of video game characters redirected (there are only over 300 that still exist), but there are no redirects in any categories. Seriously. And it' not even because of me, that's how it is for years, and it was a good thing. Please don't change it all of sudden. --Niemti (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
BECAUSE that's how it was for YEARS, since the merging began in 2007, due to an unspoken agreement between all the editors. Go and check, there are just no redirects there. If something is there, it's either notable or not merged yet. The is ABSOLUTELY no reason for it to be messed. Look, I specifically created http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Video_game_characters_by_year_of_introduction (like there's a similar article for comic book characters) few days ago so they won't be lost in the sea of redirect in the general categories. Can't you really cooperate? I don't mind ANY other categories, which is over 99%. --Niemti (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
And we care so much that User:Kung Fu Man is even removing video game-related categories from the comic book or film characters that are also in games, becuase these categories are kept short, containing only the essential content (notable characters originating in the games). So just don't do it here now PLEASE. Is what I ask too much, really? --Niemti (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Because that's how it ALWAYS was, and because I ask you (that's only you who's doing it). --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, they were actually always being categorized by their way of introduction. But you know what, I'm tired of all this pleading like that. Are you really so un-cooperative that you can't do such even a minor thing when someone asks you nicely? --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
One, actually yes, I would, probably. Two, if you don't even really know what I ask you for, then never mind, I'll take care of it myself. It's not any big thing after all, just please don't disrupt. EOD and have a nice day. --Niemti (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
And on a final sidenote, just let me quote Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects#When to categorize a redirect:
"Most redirects should not be placed in article categories. There are, however, maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those."
That's what it reads, italics as in original. You must have totally misunderstood it, because you're doing the opposite. Anyway, I don't care about other categories outside of video games, so you might keep doing it despite this clear directive to not be doing it (no, really I don't care, just telling you that you can stop right now if you want). Good bye. --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
"image is not discussed critically"
Hi there. Please stop nominating non-free content with the reasoning "image is not discussed critically". WP:NFCC does not require a critical discussion of an image in order for it to be usable on Misplaced Pages (in fact, some images like movie posters or album covers are almost never critically discussed but there is rock-solid consensus that their use in infoboxes is still NFCC-compatible), so listing images for that reason does not mean that they should be deleted. If you really believe that you are aiding the project by such mass-nominations, then please make an individual argument for each file explaining how exactly it violates our policies. As you are certainly well aware, just claiming that the FUR is invalid does not mean that it is. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? Misplaced Pages:NFCI explicitly states: "Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." Hundreds of screenshots that were purely ornamental were deleted for this exact reason--see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2012_February_14#File:30_Rock_season_1_episode_1.png. What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The image is for discussing the work. But the image itself does not have to be discussed. It's sufficient that the text alludes to the image's content and the image is helpful for the reader to better understand what the text is talking about. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use But by that rationale, couldn't we include dozens of screencaps on each of these articles that illustrate all manner of things being discussed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The image is for discussing the work. But the image itself does not have to be discussed. It's sufficient that the text alludes to the image's content and the image is helpful for the reader to better understand what the text is talking about. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Reverting my edits
Why did you revert my edits of the Essential Records categories? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Seasons in English cricket
Hi, thanks for your mail about your proposal and sorry I didn't get involved but I rarely use the site now as I'm too busy. I see your proposal was in any event rejected which is good because the logic, as a few people pointed out, is in the historical context. I don't do century years. There is a cricket history reason for 1787, etc. Century years look neat but they make no sense. ----Jack | 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
UNDUE discussion
Hi. I'm looking for an objective opinion for this discussion on whether certain content in the lead is giving undue weight or not. It's similar to my previous comment. Would you be interested in commenting? Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)