User talk:Koavf/Archive038

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

Avoid editing user page or user_talk page

I saw your bot changing {{!-}} to {{!}}- for lots of pages, however, it's inappropriate/impolite to edit other people's user or user_talk page, please skip them.--NULLSPACE (Φ) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette What do you mean? Where did you get this idea? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Something broke

See this edit. Also, if you're going to edit at 6epm or higher (I saw all the way up to 9epm), please do it under a bot account. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How so? Comparing this with this, I don't see anything broken (in Chrome 15.x) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing visibly changed, however it added a bunch of useless wikitext (I'm guessing from {{welcome}}) that won't be shown because of how the #switch parserfunction is configured. Legoktm (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay Excuse my density here, but is this a problem? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It just added a bunch of useless wikitext to a user's talkpage? It's not a visible change but I don't know if it was particularly welcome either. Additionally, by not using a bot account you just triggered a bunch of "you have new messages" banners, which is a problem. Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bots But bots do that as well, don't they? If you want, I can restrict these AWB edits purely to replacing the template, but I'm done with the user/user talk namespaces anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, bots have a special user-right that enables them to edit user talk pages without leaving the new messages notice/triggering an email (which is why you don't get the message when an archive bot archives a talk page). It would be best that for the future if you just get bot approval for making TfD edits and run such edits through a bot account. Legoktm (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay That makes sense--it's rare that I'm editing user/user talk pages en masse, but if I consider it, then that's an option. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Untruthful claims about templates to excuse your vast editing.

Template {{!-}} is at TfD. This has no rationale and merely repeats a rationale from an editor six years ago, on the basis of not understanding the needs of parser functions. There is only one supporting voice to delete it, yours.

Despite this evident support, you have unilaterally declared this template to be slated for deletion and have started a bulk campaign of 'bot-speed editing to remove it. Including removing it from others' user and talk pages. You do not have any consensus to make edits like this, per long-established practice here, both for pre-empting deletion discussions, for messing with others' userspace and possibly also for running an undisclosed 'bot.

I find it ironic that your own talk page has a large red "Please do not edit others' comments" editnotice upon it. Something that you don't seem to feel limits your own actions on others' userpages. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Irony What is the problem? Is there some significant difference between {{!-}} and {{!}}-? Why are you so mad about me moving a hyphen one space to the right? Also, the true irony here is that I said nothing untruthful while you actually did. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you really should stop this, there is no consensus to make this change. Some editors find {{!-}} more readable, and helps separate this usage of the pipe template from others. Saying this is "per TFD" is simply not true. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I already did stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to revert these? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't plan on it... Why would I? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:The Band of Blacky Ranchette albums

See closing comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_5#Category:The_Band_of_Blacky_Ranchette_albums.

It's a great pity that you seem so unwilling to ensure that CfD nominations describe the intended actions clearly and accurately, and provide links to the relevant articles to save editors from having to burrow for them. It takes very little time to add this info when making a nomination, but if it is provided then other editors can check it out quite easily. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I don't think that I'll ever understand you, but thanks for posting to my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's hard to understand. If the nomination sets out exactly what is intended, and provides the relevant links to allow easy checking, then then editors are more likely to do the checks and participate in the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail Please check your e-mail. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:A. C. Newman albums

Category:A. C. Newman albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Subs

I suggest you move the uses out of edit notices, since these can only be edited by account creators and admins.

Now the next question is how many languages per file should we support?

Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Okay The TimedText space doesn't allow for <noinclude> (I found out the hard way...), so should we go to the file itself and put something like {{subtitles|en|NAME-OF-SUBTITLES.ogg.en.srt}}? I guess that makes sense. Note that now you're generating links like "File:TimedText:foo" instead of the proper "TimedText:foo". I'm signing on to Skype now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't got just how the timed text worked. I can't believe they have camel-cased a namespace. It's a techie backsliding. Sigh. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Looks like some aliases have been defined:

• TimedText:They Are Night Zombies!! - Sufjan Stevens - clip.ogg.en.srt
• Timedtext:They Are Night Zombies!! - Sufjan Stevens - clip.ogg.en.srt

But not:

• Timed Text:They Are Night Zombies!! - Sufjan Stevens - clip.ogg.en.srt
• Timed text:They Are Night Zombies!! - Sufjan Stevens - clip.ogg.en.srt

Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Skype Just let me know if you want to chat this out... I signed off, but I can sign on again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Band category renamings

You have listed a whole bunch of band categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, but the reason for this is unclear. I don't think there is a guideline stating that a category name has to match an article name, including the disambiguation, when that category name in itself is unambiguous. The same argument applies for things like Queen (band) but Queen discography (not Queen (band) discography), or Prince (musician) but Prince discography. While many such categories now do use the (band) or (musician) disambiguator, I feel that this is overkill and should be removed wherever possible, not introduced to even more categories.

I have listed them all as being "opposed" for this reason. Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums by format

Category:Albums by format, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums released on DVD-Audio

Category:Albums released on DVD-Audio, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Songs produced by ....

For an example please see here. Just because an album says produced by XXX, it does not follow that every song from that album is produced by the same person. I do not know in this instance whether you are correct or not, but it does make sense to ensure that text and category agree, and, hopefully, are referenced. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Right But this is an EP produced by Flood--no one else is credited with producing it. Are you suggesting that it's inaccurate? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox says Mark Ellis, you added Flood, and, as you pointed out, if it's an EP, then it isn't a song! It's one of a couple I have come across today. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Songs It's common for an EP to be named after a lead song--the two aren't mutually exclusive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphan tagging with AWB

It would appear this tag by AWB of an orphan is incorrect. The article has two incoming links.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORPHAN It's desirable to have at least three incoming links, so I think that's why AWB adds {{Orphan}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual#General states:

"Tip Orphan tagging can be limited to articles with 0 incoming links (excluding redirects) from the Options Menu. There is an option called "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages".

It is strongly recommend to activate this feature in en.wiki."

You may also want to read WP:ORPHAN#Templates, which has options for {{orphan}} that I did not know existed. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh You learn something new every day. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tricks and Treats (American Horror Story)

The article Tricks and Treats (American Horror Story: Asylum) should be moved back to Tricks and Treats (American Horror Story). Adding Asylum is redundant. The series is still just American Horror Story. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request If you request a move using {{Move}} on the talk page, I'll leave feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your high-speed editing

At 06:20, 4 November 2012, you managed to make 25 edits in that one minute. At 06:22, I see another 25 edits. At 06:08, I see 20 edits. Please get a bot account if you're going to continue to make edits at that rate. In fact, most bots usually don't edit faster than 6epm. It's especially worse when the database had been going into read-only mode and showing high database lag for pretty much the entire hour before. Legoktm (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Read-only Do you know why the database is doing this? Is this scheduled maintenance or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it's under heavy load. According to wikitech:Server admin log, there was no maintenance done during that time period. I still don't see any reason why you were editing at such a high speed though. Is there a reason you were doing so? Legoktm (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Workload There's just a lot to do and I'm getting tired--I wanted to finish before I go to sleep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lux (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambient (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) 11:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB settings for Orphan

Please note that the definition of an Orphaned article has been changed to one with no incoming links from articles. When using AWB it is strongly recommended to use the "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages" option. If you feel an article needs more incoming links you can use the few parameter in the Orphan template--Traveler100 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Indeed! It seems nothing's ever perfect :) By the way, I just discovered the subtitles you added, very cool! Jujutacular (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Double live albums

Hi, re this edit: which CFD was this? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2#Category:Double_albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That CFD is for Category:Double albums and Category:Triple albums, nothing else. Since it closed as delete, and does not mention sub-categories, that permits the removal of Category:Double live albums from Category:Double albums, and the deletion of Category:Double albums, but not the deletion of Category:Double live albums. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well That's not true: I do explicitly mention it in the CfD nomination and I created the scheme, so I can apply {{db-author}}. Either way, even if I wasn't to remove them because of procedure, the rationale to delete this category would be the same as its parent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still good form to tag all nominated pages at the time of nomination, also to link the edit summary to the relevant deletion discussion, so that we're not left thinking "where did that come from?" --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Granted It's certainly better to err on the side of being too informative. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Albums category

Just a heads-up. When using the Albums category template, the article name and display name need to be specified when the actual article title is different from that in the category name. See the recent changes at Category:Crime Boss albums for the albums of Crime Boss (rapper) for an example. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks As you can see at WP:CFDS, I've made hundreds of nominations per c2b/c2d to rename these categories per the main article. The goal is to never have to use that parameter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Magnum (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBS Records

Wonderful, Glorious (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Silver Lake

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Donkey breeds

Koavf, just a quick heads up. Please do not request diffusion of donkey breeds into nation of origin categories. For one thing, some breeds wind up being in multiple categories due to historic boundary changes which makes figuring out how many articles we have on wiki a challenge, and for another, there really IS a need to have all the breeds listed in one place for navigational purposes, there aren't really that many. We are trying to get List of donkey breeds into some sort of shape, and it really becomes MORE difficult to find new articles when they are scattered into dozens of categories. I know that "cat-land" in general prefers diffusion and discourages articles from being in both a "parent" and a "child" cat, but here it is really needed for WikiProject Equine to keep this stuff organized. We actually were not real happy to see the nation of origin categories added in the first place, but I guess we've lost that battle. Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Importance But why is it important? How is it that donkeys can't be categorized this way but albums can? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, one article in the category, for one thing. ;-) And per WP:DUPCAT: Not all subcategories serve the "diffusion" function ... some are simply subsets which have some special characteristic of interest..." With only a couple dozen donkey breed articles, there is no "need" to diffuse or classify by national origin. And I guess if someone really insists that there really MUST be a nation of origin cat, I'm not going to edit war over it (even if I think it's unnecessary), but my concern is keeping the main category as a non-diffusing one. Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories Per WP:SMALLCAT, there is no problem with single-member categories. And Category:Donkey breeds in X diffuses both Category:Donkeys and Category:Mammals in X. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, my main concern is that the main category "donkeys" (or maybe we should just do a donkey breeds category, but I think there are only about 3-4 donkey articles that aren't about breeds) be non-diffusing for donkey breeds so people have "one stop shopping" if they want to find all the breed articles. if people really must insist on having a one-article category, I think it is over-categorization and I fail to see how that helps navigability ("animal breeds originating in ..." cat makes more sense for that purpose) but if it really really really matters to them, I won't go into a 3RR war over it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I swapped out the taxobox for the breed infobox on purpose; just like the horse breeds, we don't use a taxobox for breeds, only for the articles on the species or subspecies: compare Shire horse, or Andalusian donkey, which are breeds, to Przewalski's horse or Donkey, which are species or subspecies, where the taxobox works. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

US network television schedules

Hi Koavf,

On October 30th, user:Kwamikagami moved all of the U.S. network television schedules from YYYY–YYYY format to YYYY/YY format, citing WP:MOS. He also changed the formatting of the article text to match this style. Yesterday, you moved all the articles back to the YYYY–YYYY format, but you've left the text in YYYY/YY, which is inconsistent. Honestly, I don't care which style is used, but it must be consistent throughout the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Slashes Huh--I can't imagine why we would move them to slashes, considering WP:SLASH. I'll change the texts now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:SLASH says:

An unspaced slash may be used:

[...]

to indicate regular defined yearly periods that do not coincide with calendar years (the 2009/10 academic year, the 2010/11 hockey season; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Longer periods)

I appreciate your efforts, but now you're just changing the beginning of the article, leaving the slashes in the rest of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed the rest of the 1955-1956 article, but more work is needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

for Bahá'í Faith by country length issue see

Talk:Bahá'í_Faith_by_country#very_beta_development... which hasn't seen a lot of development. I'd thought something like a continental summary like Bahá'í Faith in Africa then with the stat summary. Smkolins (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Characters of the Mass Effect universe

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as I don't think its deletion is uncontroversial and really requires an afd. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

the The

I have just read the Request for Mediation on the topic of The Beatles and note that no real consensus was met, yet the decision was made to convert all of the articles over, regardless, to the less-commonly accepted version, being the lower case "t" in the article "The". I find it incredulous and incredible to see this take place. The suggestion was made to seek the consensus of the written secondary sources and on doing so, I have looked up 15 of the reference articles from The Beatles main page and all consistently refer to the band with the capitalised "T". --rm 'w avu 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I'm not really sure why you posted this here: I had nothing to do with that conversation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could see that you had enacted changes. It's been a while since I've been "community centric" here in the 'pead. I'll shoot over to the suggester's page and raise the matter there. --rm 'w avu 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Too Long" on killings by law enforcement

Hello! I have begun a discussion on how to handle the length of the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012 which you recently tagged, and it would be great to have your comments or suggestions on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Michellecornelison (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Split Why not List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2012, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, February 2012... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Guyanese cricketers

Category:Guyanese cricketers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Atheists by nationality

I noticed that you had repeatedly reverted others on whether Category:Atheists by nationality should be within Category:People by religion and nationality. Category:Religious skeptics by nationality seems to solve it neatly... agreed? – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure Strictly speaking, even that is suspect, but infinitely better. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Races of the Mass Effect universe

Hello again, just letting you know that I removed the prod from the above article as I do not think it suited to a proposed deletion.

Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 20:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Steampunk music

Category:Steampunk music was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD October 4, and the discusison was closed by me as "delete".

Following further discussion with interested editors, I have re-listed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Steampunk_music, where your comments will be welcome.

This notice is being sent to all the editors who participated in the original discussion, and also to those who posted on my talk page aboutr the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA

Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow I had no idea this was even being discussed. Great! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was, some schedulings come as a surprise! Enjoy! (I am only the messenger, the bot doesn't work.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It was nominated by TonyTheTiger on 30th October - you should have been notified according to the WP:TFAR "rules" and I'm sorry nobody (including me) noticed the oversight. Bencherlite^Talk 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries Especially since it passed! What a pleasant surprise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

TimedText

TimedText?!? I'm hoping you know something about this new (?) namespace (history, link to the discussion generating the namespace, guideline/policy on the TimedText name space, etc.) per your post here. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:Dane Blue - More Feeling.ogg.en.srt. I'm trying to figure out where TimedText deletion requestes should be posted (MfD, FfD, ?) as well as the standards (policy/guideline/etc.) by which to judge a request for TimedText deletion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No policies or guidelines The namespace was just made active without any evident thought or preparation. I've more-or-less adopted it simply because I care. It's been on Commons for years now, so they presumably have some guidelines, but those aren't necessarily incumbent upon us. As for where it goes in deletion, TimedText isn't a file anymore than any other text on Wikipedia is, so MfD is appropriate, as best as I can tell. It probably won't come up often, so we probably don't have to worry about it much. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I found Commons:Commons:Timed Text. I also saw Education Program namespace. Is there something special about Education Program content that it can't be placed in something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Education Programs? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Education Program talk:Main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Beerschoolbookcover.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unification graphic representation of SADR flag

Hello Koavf, I had found this Spanish graphic design web with an official (with the approval of POLISARIO representation office in Madrid) work on unification of the graphic design of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic flag. I think it should be uploaded at File: Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg, but I don't know how. I suppose the CC license could be appropiate, as it is a public domain file. What do you think?. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent That's a great find and it's CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is compatible with Commons! Do you want to upload it or do you want me to do it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! As I said, I dont know how to upload that .svg files (I nearly always use the "upload a new version of this file" option), so it doesnt bother me who do it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem I'll happily upload it. Thanks again for all of the great Western Sahara-related work you do. I've been really dropping the ball on this for years and I'm glad that you're picking up the slack. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much and nice work, but I was referring primarly to update the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg file, the one on the infobox page.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Update I've fixed the colors--the dimensions were all correct. The only thing left to do is adjust the star, so I added commons:Template:Update to the original file to see if someone else will come along and fix it. I can try myself, but the math just gets tricky to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Simpsons images

Why don't you work on improving articles, rather than trying to tear apart the work of others? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You must be planning a run for adminship, then you can say "Look at me, I'm a good boy, look at all the articles I've helped wreck!" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF I'll go ahead and bite. Wikipedia is a part of a larger movement of free culture: using free software, free information, and other free cultural works. It's assumed that a strong and broad repository of freely available cultural works benefits everyone and Wikipedia thrives on the use of freely-licensed (or entirely unlicensed) content. At times, the ability to communicate a message is hampered by the fact that freely-licensed sources are not available to convey whatever message. In these instances, intellectual and cultural works which are protected by law (copyright, patent, trade secret, or trademark) can be used in part according to fair use.

To break fair use by using intellectual and cultural works which are protected by law is to break Wikipedia in a kind of ideological or aspirational sense. Wikipedia should never use media which are not freely-licensed or which have a fair use. Some editions of Wikipedia only use freely-licensed material (e.g. the Spanish.) What exactly constitutes fair use and how it is applied is an issue that will be discussed and debated informally and through legal channels as long as such a thing as intellectual property exists.

The English-language Wikipedia has developed a list of criteria under which non-free media may be used in this encyclopedia. One of those is "contextual significance", defined as such: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In the case of (e.g.) a non-free screenshot of Bart Simpson and Milhous Van Houten standing on an overpass, the latter of which is holding mustard, this is not a piece of non-free media which must be included in an article for readers' understanding. I don't think you can reasonably make the case that inclusion of this image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" nor can you say that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

If I'm wrong in anything that I've written above, please correct me.

Issues about free culture matter a lot to me, so I want to ensure that Wikipedia continues to rely on freely-licensed media and is strict about not using non-free media except where it has a truly important education value. Not only does free culture matter to me, it's one of the most important things to me. One of the few things that is more important is basic human decency.

To come to my talk page assuming that I have ulterior motives when I wreck your work is simply rude. I can see how you could rationally make this argument, but not morally. Do you know me? Do you have any reason to think that I'm malicious? Do you honestly believe that I have some scheme against you? I have no intention of wrecking anyone else's work. In fact—for the reasons I stated above—Wikipedia is made significantly better when non-free media without fair use rationales are removed and as a cultural movement, it is stronger when users are encouraged to investigate, create, and find freely-licensed media. Are you willing to believe that my motives are nothing more or less than the improvement of this encyclopedia, or do you honestly think that the only or best explanation is that I'm malevolent?

I've had hard work deleted from Wikipedia—sometimes it was the right decision and other times, I disagreed. Sometimes, I have entered conversations with others in bad faith—assuming that they have malintention when another explanation will suffice. I'd ask that if you speak with me in the future, you assume that my motives are pure, even if my actions are different than those you would have taken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You must imagine that you're quite the badass, don't you? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh I tried. It's more than a little disappointing to make a careful and respectful argument, anticipating the other person will act like a decent adult and then get something like this. Such is the Internet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I post a message about deletion, and you respond by nominating a dozen more Simpsons images and clogging up my talkpage even more. I consider that the actions of a 12 year old with dreams of adminship who fancies themselves a badass. As for debating you maturely, what's the point? I could post the most logical argument ever on the deletion pages (all 50 of them), but the images would still be deleted, so why bother? I gave up trying to understand and debate with your kind years ago. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Debating The point of discussing this maturely is that we could be enriched by the discussion. Instead, you're unwilling to do that and resort to name-calling. Which of us is acting immature here? If you post a logical argument against deletion, what makes you think they'll be deleted? The argument, "I could totally explain this, but I just don't wanna" doesn't ring true to me: if anything, I take it as a tacit admission that you know that a screengrab of Milhouse holding condiments is not fair use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that your tactic of nominating 50+ related images with different images is highly unfair (although I suppose it ups your edit count for when you decide to run for adminship). I don't have the time or energy to debate you on one nomination, let alone more than 50. It's a tactic you employ to ensure that resistance is spread out, so more of the images get deleted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your nominations, it's become clear that you haven't bothered to check each and every image and how it relates to some of the articles. For example, File:Cecil and Bob.png has a detailed rationale and why it assists in critical commentary on the article Sideshow Bob. However, you clearly did not read this rationale because you do not address it once in your copy and paste deletion nomination. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF, etc. It's sad to me that you're sticking with assuming bad faith and ulterior motives on my part and that you refuse to address the very simple and direct questions that I pose to you. Since you insist on name-calling, canvassing, and deliberately missing the point, it's hard to justify me having this conversation with you. The problem I noticed was that a given Simpsons article had non-free media that should be deleted. When I looked further, I found that several dozen did as well. It's hardly a tactic and it's not aimed at anything other than furthering the interests of the encyclopedia. I wish you would just be willing to believe me and take me at my word, since I've never given you a reason to do otherwise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should I assume good faith? I'm calling it as I see it. I see an editor who wants to run for adminship, who decided to boost his portfolio by nominating hundreds of images for deletion at once. What you should have done is nominated maybe a dozen at a time. Then we would be able to spend the proper time going through each and every one. If you did this same thing with mainspace articles, you'd be reported to ANI.

You've made a number of bad calls.

1. Nominating hundreds at once. Do you know how intimidating it is to look at hundreds of ifds? It's very annoying to have to go through EACH AND EVERY ONE and figure out whether or not it's worth defending. This is clearly a tactic (and a very effective one) because who wants to bother? Besides, soon enough some other user will come through and do a copy and paste support campaign for you.
2. NOT LOOKING THROUGH EVERY IMAGE. You copy and pasted the same rationale EACH AND EVERY TIME. It's clear you didn't look at every rationale and the context that it is used in the article. Some are decorative. Some are used to illustrate key points discussed at length in the article text.
3. You have a very closed mind. Looking at your responses, they all seem to be along the lines of "How do you know they help users?" Well, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DON'T? When you enter with a closed mind, of course you're not going to see such things.
4. "Could this not be conveyed adequately with text?" This response really pissed me off. Ever heard the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"? Why spend a lot of time discussing something when you can easily illustrate that point with an image, which helps the readers' understanding of the text? Using your very broad rationale, could you not argue that just about any image on any article is "decorative"? Is an image of Obama shaking hands with some foreign leader REALLY helping readers understand the article? Is an image of AC/DC playing a concert in Toronto going to illustrate much?
5. The onus should be on you to prove your allegations. You should prove that the images do not aid in illustrating the text. You do not do this, nor do you attempt to do so.
6. Targeting one show. I admit, I haven't had time to look through each and every one, but at a quizk glance, I see all (or mostly) Simpsons images. I hope you intend to do the same thing for Family Guy, King of the Hill, Futurama, South Park and every other animated show. Of course, once you run for adminship, you'll give up. Then again, look at all the edits you'll be able to make to up your count!

And P.S. I wasn't canvassing. I was asking for help in sifting through the mess you've created. Lefty is a user who knows his stuff, and his help with this task would be great. Canvassing would be if I did the same thing for a half dozen other users. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To jump in, I have the same question. Are you just going through every Simpsons and apparently also the Office to delete things? A lot of these are helpful to the articles, and even make the articles fun to read. I know "fun" isn't part of the goal of this site, but a little levity doesn't hurt anybody either. This isn't supposed to be the World Book or something. It also seems to me that your strategy is pure sheer number. You nominate hundreds of images, and write very long descriptions. That's not assuming bad faith, it's assuming a strategy. And I don't agree that deleting images that help articles makes Wikipedia better because of some idea of the freeness of information. Furthermore, how are people supposed to "investigate, create, and find freely-licensed media?" for a TV show? Make a diorama? --AW (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF, etc. Scorpion, if you're not sure why you should assume good faith, you can simply read WP:AGF or try to be more considerate and civil. Coming up with bad faith rationales for my actions makes Wikipedia not work as well. Saying that I'm closed minded (what do you even mean?) makes it hard to have any conversation with you, since you're inherently prejudiced against what I write.

I looked at every single image and its context (note that there are several dozen that I didn't nominate for this exact reason.) If "Could this not be conveyed adequately with text?" really pissed you off, then you may not want to work on an encyclopedia which is based on free cultural works. Every piece of non-free media has to have an educational, critical, and necessary fair use rationale. If a piece of non-free media attempts to explain something that could just as easily be explained with text that our editors create, then it must be deleted. It's not just that it could be kept or deleted--it's obligatory. I'm not sure why this pisses you off? What is so infuriating about the prospect of keeping non-free media to an absolute minimum?

The onus is on every person who uploads any piece of non-free media: it must have a justification. And several hundred (probably thousands) of pieces of non-free media on this site don't.

And again, you've assumed bad faith and resorted to some bizarre conspiratorial language where I'm out to get The Simpsons. If you search the FFD logs, I've nominated over a thousand images before and hundreds were from other television shows, such as the American Office, the Star Trek franchise, and Family Guy. You clearly didn't bother to do that, though. And again, this has nothing to do with adminship or boosting my edit count: mine is the highest there is.

The problem here is much larger than an image or two: you fundamentally misunderstand how non-free media are used here and you're making rude and baseless allegations.

AW, I completely agree that some of these media make articles more enjoyable and even poignant, but as you yourself point out, that's not the goal of this encyclopedia. If a piece of non-free media is critical to understanding the topic, then it can be kept. If not, then it must be deleted. There is necessarily a high threshold for using others' intellectual works that are under copyright and Wikipedia is better off for using free cultural works as much as possible. As far as using free cultural works for a television show, you can substitute copyrighted works with non-copyrighted equivalents or create new works of your own (including dioramas.) If you're interested in this, there is a huge community at the Wikimedia Commons who would be happy to help you (I also edit there sometimes.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so now you're changing your deletion rationale AFTER you nominate over 100 images? I want nothing more to do with you. You don't know what you're doing, and you clearly care more about making edits than you do about improving articles. Your nominations just clog up the process, making responding to them very difficult and tedious for both the delete and keep sides. You are essentially admiting that your original nominations were based on faulty rationale and that you did little to no research. You just found a bunch of fair use images and nominated them. If I thought it would do any good, I would try to have you barred from participating in IFD, but that would just result in weeks of bickering and nothing would happen anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing I did, in fact, amend my rationales, but only to clarify the point that I was making in the first place and still explicitly referencing the same policy. It's funny that you say that I'm not concerned about improving articles, considering how one that I wrote was on the main page yesterday... If you think I've done something untoward, tell me. If you think that it's really untoward, tell an admin. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have the time or desire to put in the amount effort it would take. (I know your response: "Well, then it must mean you realize I haven't done anything wrong").

And yes, I definitely think what you did was wrong. You clogged up the IFD process with hundreds of nominations, which is a tactic you and others like you employ to discourage resistance. Who has the time to read through hundreds of IFDs? You clearly didn't look through all of the images and their rationales and context because you used the same rationale for each image. I call this "Blind editing" (though in this case, it would be "Blind nominating". You made absolutely no effort to reach out to the project or any of the editors before doing this. If you're going to nominate that many images that relate to one project, then the LEAST you could do is reach out to the project and tell them which images you want to nominate. Then we would be able to work with you to weed out the useful images (ie. something that illustrates a discussed character design) and those that are less useful (ie. Your example of Milhouse pouring mustard). After that, or if we don't respond or work with you, THEN you go ahead. I am aware that this isn't a policy or required, but it should be.

And, most humorously and damning of all, midway through, you decided that you were wrong, and changed the rationales. I take that as an admission that you didn't know what you were doing, that you were wrong, that you didn't do the proper research, and that you were just wasting our time. Furthermore, because of your admission, any images that you've nominated in the past with that rationale should be undeleted and you should be barred from IFD since you don't have a clue what you're doing. Of course, we both know that won't happen. So why bother? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF, still "Others like you?" I don't know why you think it should be obligatory to get WikiProjects to comment on what is fundamental to the fair use policy: non-free media must have a valid rationale and the burden of proof is on the uploader. This is true for legal as well as ethical reasons. As I explained before (and I'll do again): My rationale refers to the same policy and has the same justification. The only thing that changed was my wording became explicit about quoting said policy because of users' objections. The fact remains that non-free media which are not educational in scope and which don't significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic need to be deleted. Your punitive claims are simply crackpot and inflammatory--you should really stop with the wild accusations and patent rudeness. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Will you stop with the talkback templates? Your like a child constantly trying to get attention. I saw your above post and I decided not to respond to it because you are rehashing your same old rationale. Of course you're going to say that you are right and that I'm a crackpot. And of course I'm going to respond saying I'm right and you're a child. What really matters is the opinions of third parties. But thanks to your 200+ nominations, very few casual IFD commenters want to wade into that mess. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I don't know what you want from me--I was just trying to be considerate. You've been persistently rude and aggressive this entire time, so if you don't want to communicate more with me, that's fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice job, you erased a lot of people's work and made a lot of articles more boring and less helpful. Wikipedia is surely a better place now. --AW (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hard work I didn't erase anything--it was the community consensus that it shouldn't have been here in the first place. I can't unilaterally remove anything from Wikipedia anymore than you can and I can't delete anything. While I like media that enhance articles and it's certainly nice to have, Wikipedia is worse off using non-free media without a fair use rationale from both ethical and legal standpoints. Wikipedia is stronger, better, and more usable for others if non-free media are kept to a minimum and if other users understand and are encouraged to abide by fair use criteria. This makes the entire free culture movement better and in its own very small way, it makes the world a better place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever makes you feel better they wouldn't have been deleted if you didn't propose them all. Whatever convoluted reasoning you use, you erased a lot of hard work of tons of people uploading those pictures to make the articles better. They are now worse. I am not going to talk about this any more because it's pointless. --AW (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He can't help it Awiseman, he's just a sheep seeking the approval of other sheep. He's not capable of original thought. All he can do is spout "policy" - and often incorrectly at that. If anyone is to blame, it's the people who encourage users to act this way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me What is the point of this post? Do you think this is acceptable behavior? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't having a conversation with you, I was responding to Awiseman. You're pretty rude you know, intruding on other conversations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rude? How am I rude when you're talking bad about me on my own talk page...? And you were interrupting a conversation between AW and me in the first place! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep responding to me, even though no good can come of this line of dialogue. You don't know much about how to deal with opposing users, do you? You must be pretty new to wikipedia then, maybe you've been here a year and now you're trying to run for adminship by racking up edits and contributing to IFD. Some advice, from a wikipedia veteran to a newbie, edits mean nothing. It doesn't matter how many you make, what matters is what you do. Take TheLeftorium for example. He doesn't make as many edits as others, but he's a first class content contributor. The only person who will keep track of your edit count is you, it won't matter to anyone else. Active content contributors will always have more respect on wikipedia than those who simply use AWB and other automatic edit programs to rack up edits. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What? Is this some kind of joke...? Click on my userpage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I don't care who you are or what you've done. All I know is you act like someone who has been here for a few months, so I treat you as such. And I do mean what I said. How in the blue hell does an obscure category having a WikiProject tag help wikipedia? Focus your efforts on improving the mainspace, and you'll gain far more respect. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay If you're willfully ignorant, rude, and provocative, I'm hardly inclined to do what you think I should do to gain your respect--if anything, it leaves me slightly disinclined. If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I don't mean my respect. You nominated 200+ images for deletion with a faulty rationale, which indicates you have no idea what you're doing. You'll never earn my respect. I mean the respect of others. And like I said, the average wikipedia user respects someone who has contributed dozens of FAs far more than they would respect someone who stacked up edits by tagging articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay If you're done berating me and you don't have anything useful to say, then you can stop now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should I? This is fun. You should stopped responding to me yesterday. Another reason why I assume you're a newbie. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop You know what you're doing--you're just harassing me and if you don't stop immediately, you'll be blocked. Your choice. I gave you plenty of opportunity to discuss this rationally, including a long and thought-out response to what was initially a childish post to my talk. I've spent far too long being reasonable when you've done nothing but be rude to me. Don't do it again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the one that seems to determined to have the last word. Harrassing? I'm just responding to your posts. Report me all you like. I know exactly what the response will be: "Well, you should have ignored him in the first place instead of responding." It'll also jeopardize your run for adminship because it'll prove that you don't know how to deal with antagonizing users. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's enough If you write to my talk again with anything other than useful information or genuine questions, I'll be at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can feign ignorance that you're just responding, but you and I both know that the only purpose you have in posting here is to be rude. I took the time to explain my actions and try to discuss this reasonably. You refused and kept on spreading this across FFD, my talk, and other users' talkpages as well because it's fun for you to bother me. I can--and will--respond to whomever I like on my own talkpage about my editing and if you don't have the propriety to leave it be, then that's hardly my problem. If you've got something constructive to say, please post it. If you post anything here that's not, then I'll have to get someone else involved to convince you to stop being a nuisance to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't want me to respond, you wouldn't keep leaving those stupid talkback templates for me. It's that simple. Don't I have the right to respond to anything you say to me? (Genuine question, by the way) Oh well, I guess one of us has to be mature here. I will not respond to whatever your reply is. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No I leave talkback because it's a courtesy and in my editnotice I say that I will. I also make it clear that if you don't want it, all you have to do is request it. Since you refused up until now, I kept on posting it. You do have the right to respond, you do not have the right to be rude. If you want to keep on talking in a civil fashion, feel free. If you want to keep on being childish, take it elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Scorpion0422: It's true. He really does stop leaving TalkBack notices if you ask. There was one slip-up, but I complained, he stopped.
• Koavf: Give Scorp a break: take Scorp's phrase "stupid talkback templates" as a preference against, and act accordingly, just as an act of good faith. --Lexein (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Image ffd's with faulty reasoning.

"Decorative" is not a policy reason for deletion, and to persist in using this as a reason is dead against WP:NFC, where the word "decorative" is never used. You appear to be engaging in a deletion tear based on your own personal criteria which are somehow more strict than those stated in WP:NFC. Stop. Given that hundreds of editors have provided valid fair use rationales for thousands of images based on stated policy as stated in multiple places including the upload wizard itself, and that television networks and show producers and their legal representation have stated repeatedly that they expect use and respect fair use of images from their shows, and hence that there will never be a DMCA takedown request from a network or producer requesting removal of a show screengrab used on Wikipedia, and that there is no reasonable fear of any such occurring, what up with these bot-like continuous deletion requests? Do not use talkback. I use my watchlist. --Lexein (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF, FFD You can see my length response above and furthermore... You'll note that I explicitly quoted NFCC#8 in these nominations. I honestly don't understand how you missed them over and over again, but my reasoning is the same with each one: these media are not necessary to understanding the topic, so they must be deleted. Note that it's not a contingency that we could keep them or lose them--we must get rid of them. Not because of legal action on the part of the copyright holder (although that is a remote possibility), but because of a set of values that favors freely-licensed media over non-free ones. I'll ask you the same: in the case of (e.g.) a non-free screenshot of Bart Simpson and Milhous Van Houten standing on an overpass, the latter of which is holding mustard, can you argue that this piece of non-free media must be included in an article for readers' understanding? Will the inclusion of this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Will "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? If you can't justify the media, it must be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With "Invalid FUR--image is not discussed critically, but is decorative (cf. NFCC #8.)" you are not quoting anything. You are

1. Claiming "Invalid FUR" without specific flaw in the FUR, or specific remedy to be repaired, is bluntly improper. The FURs, in the main, have been filled out exactly per instructions given at the time.
2. You claim "image is not discussed critically", even if it is, or its content is.
3. You claim "but is decorative (cf. NFCC #8.)" as if that's policy, when it explicitly is not. The word "decorative" is not mentioned or implied. The policy is WP:NFCC (I said NFC, which transcludes NFCC, so ok). The least you can do is not create synth or OR on top of actual policy. "Decorative" is part of industry guidelines about WP:ALT text, not about fair use.
4. NFCC#8 is arguably subjective in its phrasing at the moment, and I argue that you have misapplied its intent. For visual dramatic subjects, it is arguable that a well-chosen frame can increase understanding beyond the ability of prose to describe. If your argument is that a specific frame is ill-chosen for that purpose, you should be specific about that.
5. It's rather rude not to wikilink to the policy you're so adamant about wishing to uphold. Is [[WP:NFCC]]#8 so much harder to copy/paste than "(cf. NFCC #8.)"? cf. Sheesh.

I maintain that for these reasons, your FFD noms, though you may perceive them to be necessary, are insufficient. --Lexein (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rude? The rationale "invalid FUR--this image is used decoratively rather than critically and readers' understanding would not be significantly diminished with its deletion. (NFCC#8)" includes a section (in bold) taken directly from the NFCC. The flaws in said fair use rationales is that they are not fair use at all: they don't have critical value in understanding the topic. As I pointed out before, is a picture of Milhouse holding mustard necessary for understanding? If not, then it must be deleted. Simply referencing that scene does not constitute critical commentary--the discussion of the topic must be significantly enhanced by the inclusion of non-free media. Every piece of non-free media on Wikipedia has to have an explicit rationale and a narrow educational purpose. If it doesn't, and instead is just a picture of Milhouse holding mustard, it must be deleted. There are some Simpsons articles that have as many as four screengrabs in one article--isn't that excessive? What limit could there be on the inclusion of non-free media?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the word "decorative" is an industry standard that applies particularly to alt text, nor do I see how it's rude to provide a link that is [[WP:NFCC]] rather than [[WP:NFCC]]#8. Can you explain this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I exactly quoted your non-wikilinked reason as listed in many FFD nominations. I don't know what you're quoting, but it doesn't match your many dozens, if not hundreds, of nominations with the exact quote I listed which lacks the wikilink. If you added the wikilink later, good, keep that up.

The word "decorative" has nothing to do with fair use, and your use of it confuses and confounds the issue. It's not in the policy, please just stop using that word. The louder and longer you object, the weaker your argument. The longer nomination text which you quote is better, but it still contains the word "decorative" as if it's policy - please remove it.

Policies and guidelines at Wikipedia are intended for the improvement of articles. FfD's should be done for the same reason. If your motivation is to kick editors' asses to use images which properly align with policy, I agree with that, but please do so with that expressed intention, and make it clear that this particular image should be deleted and a more-compliant one selected with supporting critical discussion in the article, or none at all. That is the intention of the policy, and it should be yours.

As you may know, I've supported previous campaigns (edit runs) you've conducted when they've been constructive to the encyclopedia, sometimes with provisos. I can support this campaign if you do so with the literally expressed intent to improve articles, including remediation steps along with or in lieu of deletion. I object strenuously to the bland, tacit, arms-folded, whack-a-mole "no, wrong. delete" approach you're now taking, as I do when blunt deletionists do it.

I have not addressed, and will not address, the image you wish to discuss, because it's not relevant to the discussion I'm trying to have with you. --Lexein (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy Go to WP:FFD, Ctrl+F and you'll find "readers' understanding would not be significantly diminished with its deletion" posted by me 272 times; I honestly have no clue how you could miss that. I don't see any problem with using the word "decorative"--I think that other users will understand. Either way, I've included a link to the relevant passage, so they can read it and make up their own minds. I don't understand what your objection is in the third paragraph, but as I just pointed out twice now, I directly appeal to the language of a policy with legal considerations, so it doesn't get much stronger than that. I hope you understand that everything I do here is "with the literally expressed intent to improve articles" but there are some things which you can't remediate along with or in lieu of deletion. I have nominated these files for deletion with no discrimination toward other files being put into the articles. I'm entirely in favor of non-free media going into these articles or appropriate fair use media--what would make you think otherwise? I think the image I mentioned is certainly germane and it's telling that no one can justify this media: that's precisely the point of NFC (that every piece of non-free media has an explicit justification for use that is significant to increasing one's understanding of the topic.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat. "Decorative" is not a policy reason for deletion, and to persist in using this as a reason is dead against WP:NFCC, where the word "decorative" is never used. I cannot take your efforts to be in good faith as long as you insist upon "augmenting" policy reasons with vague, provocative, not-in--policy words like "decorative". It is a trollish word, intended to demean and not explain. It's appalling. Example (wikistripped):

File:The office grief counseling.png

File:The office grief counseling.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CPnieuws (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--image is not discussed critically, but is decorative (cf. NFCC #8.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)"

--Lexein (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Trollish? It's funny that you call me out for being "trollish" and being "appalled" at the use of the word "deocrative" when there is actual trolling on this page and it doesn't seem to bother you too much there. I think that you're assuming a lot about my motivations which is unfounded and you're mostly complaining about a non-issue. You're correct that my wording before (as with those Office nominations) was too vague and didn't strictly and explicit state the policy reasons for deletion. That's no longer a problem, so I'm not sure what your beef is anymore. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Decorative is non-policy. To insist on using it in xFD and CSD is just arrogantly non-policy. That you would ask what my beef is, as a knowledgeable experienced editor who insists on continuing to use the word "decorative" as if it was policy, proximately linking directly to a policy page which never uses the word, and thus engaging in this, the very definition of trolling behavior, is indeed appalling. I literally don't care about other editors trolling you - you should know how to deal with it without engaging in it. By now, you should be holding up a better example of behavior and procedural actions than your ongoing off-policy deletion rationale descriptions. Further, I, above, specifically requested that you not use the talkback template on my talk page, and you further ignored my explicit instructions written right there on my talkpage. That's pure troll, all the way. Stop it. You know better, and you know what comes next. --Lexein (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Next? No, I don't. Please inform me of what comes next--I'd be very interested in finding out. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Next is challenging every single one of your nominations as invalid, misleading, and lying about policy in order to push your agenda. Your persistent use of the word "decorative" is still a trollword, because it is still not a valid deletion reason, and must be removed. You've edited your nominations to further falsify policy, by injecting emphasis and intentions not stated in policy: "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated or implied or intended in NFCC. Misleading about policy while attempting to enforce it is egregiously bad form, and breaks faith with editors. What to do? 1. Stop interpreting, exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting policy: you're not good at it. 2. Revert out all such language. I could take care of the problem for you, but you wouldn't like it. Best to do it yourself. (As I've previously stated, I have defended prior actions you've taken, with provisos, but this one, with its clear deliberate linguistic gamesmanship and trolling, is indefensible, as it is damaging to good will with good-faith image uploaders and editors who all want to comply with policy, but are misled by exaggerations by you.) --Lexein (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lies I never lied about anything or falsified anything. I don't understand why you insist on being so inflammatory and refuse to just assume good faith. You claim that words like "decorative" must be removed at FFD, but FFD doesn't say that. Where are you getting the idea that the only rationales you can give there must be explicit in quoting policy? Also, you should stop saying that I'm trolling, as I'm not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing "omission would be detrimental" (policy) to "not critical for understanding"(you) or "greatly decrease"(you) is plainly misrepresentative. Changing "significantly increase" (policy) to "greatly enhance" (you) is plainly misrepresentative. Since when is misrepresentation of policy not lying? I'm not going to gloss over this, or let you off the hook, because you're distorting policy, not just some random essay. This matters. Yes, I'm coming down heavy on you, because you're just dead wrong in distorting or exaggerating policy language. Playing with language as if it doesn't matter, and if it's just okay to do, in deletion discussions, is wrong, and breaks faith with editors. There are very few rules on Wikipedia: NFCC is one set of them, and WMF doesn't need you twisting its meaning. --Lexein (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy I'll grant that "significantly increase" and "greatly enhance" are separate words, but I didn't choose them to distort the meaning--they're just two different ways of trying to say the same thing. I don't think that one misrepresents the other as they are inarguably similar, even though the language isn't identical. You play much faster and looser with words like "trolling" which I patently did not do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. You were never trying to say "the same thing", you were exaggerating it for deletionist effect. You fail to respect the language and the meanings of the words you're replacing. There is no justification to restate perfectly comprehensible policy language. The word "significantly" is not equivalent to "greatly". Don't say it is, it isn't. The words "omission would be detrimental to understanding" is never equivalent to "not critical for understanding". Never. Based on your defense of this hackery of meaning, you are, bluntly, bad at English, so just stop butchering a language you do not understand. Further, stop butchering policy which you do not respect. Do: quote policy. Don't: paraphrase or rephrase it. If you think I'm out of line, take me to any dispute resolution process you choose. Now. --Lexein (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny It seems like you now know more about my own mind than I do. How can you possibly know what I meant or didn't mean...? The way that you accuse me of being "bad at English" and not understanding it is simply rude and the fact that 97% of my XfDs and PRODs have resulted in deletion, renaming, or merging shows that I know something or other about what I'm posting. You certainly are out of line in your tone to me and if you want someone else's scrutiny on your accusations that I'm a liar, I'm a troll, making passive aggressive null edits directed as slurs against other users, or saying that someone's edits are like rape then that can be arranged, but do you honestly want someone else seeing all of this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all out there to be seen. Notwithstanding your continued insistence that misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and falsifying intention of policy text is okay, yes, I meant what I wrote, not what you again misrepresented(now your trademark), and I said it in public for all to see. You've repeated broken faith with the community by lying about policy 272 (your count) times. I stand by every single one of my written words. --Lexein (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Do tell How that editor's actions were like rape. Also, I never lied about anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Cool off. I have redacted two words (REDACTION) from your comment in accordance with WP:TPOC(the "sometimes permitted" clause) because they misrepresented my words, were out of context, altered the sense of the discussion, and as such were deeply WP:UNCIVIL (don't pretend the "it's the same thing" routine - WP:DEADHORSE). You are very welcome to rewrite your comment with either a complete, accurate quote of full sentences of my words, or no reference whatsoever to my words. To answer your query, deletion against small but real keep consensus without discussion or relisting for further discussion is, quite bluntly, everything I said it was, and breaks faith with the community on rather grand scale. --Lexein (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No I'm going to leave my comments as they stood. And call me crazy, but I don't think that anything that anyone can do in terms of content on Wikipedia is comparable to rape in any way. The idea that faith has been broken in Wikipedia or the WMF on "a grand scale" is fantastical as well, but at least it's not grossly insensitive to someone who has experienced sexual violence. You're really out of line and disconnected from reality if you believe that someone's actions in deleting a screengrab of Milhouse holding mustard are "kinda rapey" (your words!) and that they "break faith with the community on a grand scale." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, here's the whole damn conversation at WikiProject Editor Retention, distorter:

Admins closing as Delete even when the deletion discussion has a clear Keep consensus?
can tis really be happening? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:It's called supervoting, and it bypasses discussion, and it sucks, and it's bad practice, and it breaks faith with the community, and it's kinda rapey, and if editors admitted they'd be doing this during their RfA interviews, they'd be nowhere goddamn fast. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:* @Lexein, Thanks for participating here and helping me understand the complex rules regarding deletions at Wikipedia. I knew that admins are supposed to act according to the community's consensus in deletion discussions, but did not know that the example I provided here was not the only exception. Is this common? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Once a year is too often, but I have no idea how often it really happens. I observe that just happened 272 times, though, if that's any indication. So no more for about 272 years would be about right, by my lights. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
((At that moment in time I was referring to the mass deletion, not any single instance - as indicated by my reference to 272)

And No, you keep your distortion of my words at peril to your own reputation, not mine. And you continue to atrociously falsify my words again to your own shame, not mine. You can pretend all you want, in your mind, what others say, or what they meant, but to actually lie in public about it is not on. I obviously, to your embarrassment, did not condemn merely a single image deletion, as you assert. I in fact believe that "someone's actions", meaning mass nominations including (but not solely consisting of) misleading distortions of policy and including one of the arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions, and mass deletions against consensus without discussion or no reply to discussion, of hundreds of images including some with obvious, established critical discussion and sufficient rationale are kinda rapey, and absolutely do break faith with the community. My words, no scare quotes. Actions by an out-of-control individual against the community are just that, nothing more and nothing less, and they break faith, no more, no less. Why pretend to have discussions at all if they're going to be bypassed by an unaccountable individual? Your pretense at not understanding that is astonishing. What other kind of community mass violation of trust would you rather call it?

More importantly than my legitimate complaint and condemnation, and more important than your zeal, people just need to read and absorb NFCC as written, with no interpretation or exaggeration. That's how it's intended to work. --Lexein (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure But how is all of this like rape again? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Illinois (album)

This is a note to let the main editors of Illinois (album) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 22, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Illinois is a 2005 concept album by American indie folk songwriter Sufjan Stevens (pictured). His fifth studio album, Illinois is Stevens' second based on a U.S. state—part of a planned series of fifty that began with the 2003 album Michigan and that Stevens has since acknowledged was a gag. Stevens recorded and produced the album at multiple venues in New York City using low-fidelity studio equipment and a variety of instruments between late 2004 and early 2005. The artwork and lyrics explore the history, culture, art, and geography of the state—Stevens developed them after analyzing criminal, literary, and historical documents. This release also continued a trend in Stevens' career of referencing his Christian faith in his lyrics. Following a July 4, 2005, release date, Stevens promoted Illinois with a world tour. Critics praised the album for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations. Illinois was named the best-reviewed album of 2005 by review aggregator Metacritic, and was included on several reviewers' "best of the decade" lists—including those of Paste, NPR, and Rolling Stone. The album was Stevens' first to place on the Billboard 200. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stockholm (Jean-Louis Aubert album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Allen (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) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Transport in the Palestinian territories

You may want to participate in Talk:Transport in the Palestinian territories#Requested move because you moved that article from "Transport in Palestinian Authority" to "Transport in the Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:A. C. Newman albums

Hi, I closed the RM as "move", so the article is now at A. C. Newman. Would you care to withdraw the CFD for Category:A. C. Newman albums? – Fayenatic London 19:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why Pink Floyd...?

Hello Koavf, I removed the prod from the above article as I believe the re-release campaign could well be notable. I added a couple of references. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 02:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• As an additional comment, a number of your other Pink Floyd edits have either been reverted or questioned because you didn't leave an edit summary. Summaries are useful for knowing why you have changed something, so the more descriptive and informative you can make this, the better it is for everyone. The help page for edit summaries has more information. Cheers. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Such as? Which edits? Thanks for notifying me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:UFO EPs

Category:UFO EPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

NFCC

When engaging in NFCC enforcement please use descriptive deletion rational and please check the articles that the image appears in. Less than a minute is not enough time to make sure that there is no critical commentary about the scene. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Granted But they were sitting in my browser for hours. I looked through over 500 articles and made nominations from several (but not all) based on looking through each one individually. The assumption that they were all reviewed simultaneously to being nominated isn't correct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam

You can go ahead and speedily nominate the rest of the "gu" categories per this decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Rolling Stones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Stewart (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) 11:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug report

AWB is not supposed to make such edits [1]. Please check your autoreplacement table. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've rollbacked similar edits you've made. Please remember that AWB is not supposed to be used to make controversial edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I see that I've introduced a stupid formatting error by my own carelessness--I've replaced it with a totally hand-done one that just edits in the matter that I intended. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

pointless

this is pointless, and makes the navbox harder to read. in particular, the newline between the footer and the end of the navbox, and the newline before the start of the groups. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bug I was trying to get rid of trailing line breaks at the end of Richard Feynman and figured this was the culprit. I managed though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA Invite

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on Wikipedia better! In November 97 people made a total of 899 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)