User talk:Jafeluv/Archive/3

Welcome back

I'm glad to see you've decided to come back, whatever your reasons for retiring may have been. (Note: I have your talkpage watchlisted; I'll remove it if you ask.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am as well. ceranthor 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cfd: Category:Essays by Richard Wagner

Hi. Can you please tell me whether you were contacted by any of the editors involved in this Cfd before you closed it? Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jafeluv, I am the person who made the orginal Cfd reference - I have been away for a few days. I was rather surprised to find that, as a result of your closing the iscussion, two other categories - Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner - have been deleted by a third party, citing your closure as justification. To my knowledge (as a creator of these categories) these two were never flagged for discussion nor was any discussion of their closure formally mooted or discussed. I am not an expert on WP procedures, so would be very glad if you could advise whether, in your opinion, these closures were in order. If they were not, I would also be glad of your opinion as to how one reinstate them and open a proper discussion about them in which the issues involved could be porperly presented by both sides. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They were both deleted by Jafeluv, not by a third party, and he said they would be deleted in his close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I understand that you weren't expecting that other categories than the one nominated could be deleted based on the discussion. Below is my reasoning for the close, and what to do if you disagree with it.

According to our deletion policy, pages can be deleted after a deletion discussion if a consensus for deletion exists in the discussion. After reading the discussion, I came to the conclusion that there was a consensus that Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner should not exist (by contrast, nobody seemed to object the creation of Category:Books by Richard Wagner). The rationale was that prose works are not categorized in "Prose works by X" categories, even for people who are notable for their prose work. The same thing applies to "Autobiographical works by X", which was also described as "small and unlikely to expand". While precedent is not binding, it's generally a good idea to follow existing structures when creating new categories. The categories were not tagged for deletion and therefore not part of the nomination; however, I felt that since they were created after the start of the discussion (and in part as a response to it), and since part of the discussion was on whether the newly created categories were appropriate, I felt that it would be better to add them to the closure rather than renominate those in a separate discussion.

I hope that helps explain my reasoning when closing the debate. If you still feel that the categories were improperly deleted, you can list them at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it can be discussed whether the categories should be undeleted or relisted for proper discussion at CfD. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jafeluv, Many thanks for your prompt and full explanation. I shall consider the appropriateness of Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, --Smerus (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversial part of the Cfd was this statement "The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist." Both I and John Bod disagreed with this (and by implication Smerus), so there was certainly no consensus for it. Moreover it went beyond the terms of the Cfd itself. I think this is a serious matter. Projects shouldn't have to run the risk of having unexpected followup decisions imposed on them by a Cfd closure. So refusing the rename was perfectly legitimate here, but changing the whole structure of half the total of the Wagner articles — on the fly! — was deplorable. --Kleinzach 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. I certainly didn't mean to prevent re-nomination with that statement, I was simply trying to explain why that category was kept and the other two deleted. I suggest bringing this up at the deletion review (see below) as well, to hear what uninvolved editors have to say about the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jafeluv - for your information: see below. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Smerus (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smerus (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge deletion reviews

The merge is fine by me, helpful I think - best regards --Smerus (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Historical events occurring near Christmastime

Following the discussion a bot has trudged round deleting this category. However, the creator of this category deleted existing Christmas categories and replaced them with his creation. Now that 'Category:Historical events occurring near Christmastime' has gone it has left some pages without a Christmas category. What now needs to be done is to add Category:Christmas events and celebrations to those pages. If this can't be done by the bot, if you can point me to a list of the relevant pages I'll add the cat manually. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I reply... and I promise that I'm just passing by and not stalking either you or Jafeluv. :)

Looking through Cydebot's contributions history, it appears that five articles were removed from the category: see here. It does not seem that they all belong in Category:Christmas events and celebrations, but I did notice that Christmas truce was in the category at one time. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Falcon. I wouldn't have minded a stalker actually, especially the helpful kind Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks from me; I can now repair those for which a Christmas category is appropriate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're both most welcome. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Party color templates

What made you think that "...Popular Democratic" was the correct place to move things that were formerly "...Democratic"? The Popular Democratic Party is a Puerto Rican party, not the national party of the center left. Also, moving to "Popular Democratic" broke many of the tables that point to the "Democratic" templates. I'm in the process of fixing this. Right now, I have a request in with an admin to move Template:American politics/party colours/Popular Democratic to Template:American politics/party colors/Popular Democratic, but would you please make sure that any other pages that got screwed up are now where you meant them to be. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I moved it that way since that's how it was proposed by RossPatterson (talk · contribs) (see here), and nobody seemed to object to that proposal. Sorry if it messed something up. Jafeluv (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

CFd close UK MPs 2005-

Hi Jafeluv,

I see you closed as the CFR for Category:UK MPs 2005-. I see four opposes and one rename, or 4:2 if the nominator is included. I would have thought that was a "keep" consenus, and don't want to criticise, but just wondered why you reckoned there was a "no consenus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, let me reread that, and I'll explain in a sec. (By the way, I proposed a related rename at WP:CFDS.) disregard that, I see you've already commented there! Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking my time here... Anyway, my reasoning was that basically everyone agreed that it was unlikely that the term would not end in 2010, but people disagreed on whether it was an appropriate reason the rename the category now. Reading the discussion again, I agree that a "keep" closure would have been appropriate as well, given not only the number of opposers but also the arguments which remained unrefuted (like the fact that using "2005-2010" could be misinterpreted as meaning that the term had already ended).

I've usually offered to ask a neutral editor for a third opinion in cases like this. I'll do that if you want, but I hope it won't be necessary since a "keep" closure would have given exactly the same result here. Anyway, thanks for the feedback – I hope I can learn from this and make better closures in the future. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply — honestly 40 minutes is really quick, so no need for an apology. Also, absolutely no need for an outside opinion, since as you note the distinction has no practical effect.

I see what you was thinking, and thanks for the explanation; I hadn't looked at it from that angle. The circumstances were a little unusual, and it occurs to me now that the simplest plain-English description of the consensus would be "rename, but not yet", and since that doesn't fit the usual mould of CFD closures it might name been misleading, so better to use "keep" or "no consensus". I had just been wondering you had in mind the thought that a "keep" closure might impede a re-nomination when the election is called (hey, CFR recently closed as keep, don't come back so soon"), and I thought that would a little odd ... but as I hoped, you had much better reasons.

I'm sure we all need to try to develop debate-closing skills, but I don't think you need worry on that front. I haven't seen you get any of them of them wrong, and that includes your difficult encounter with the Wagnerians. Don't take that too personally: some of the opera crew have a big WP:OWNership thing, and you were unfortunate to get caught up in that. If it comes back to CFD, I'm sure that it will all end up as you closed it.

BTW, thanks for doing so many closes. Since Kbdank71 hung up his boots, there has tended to be a bit of a backlog, and you have done great work in reducing it. Please keep it up! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mannheim Centre for European Social Research

Thanks for the move. MuffledThud (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Jafeluv (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving Systolic geometry. Tkuvho (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem :P Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jafeluv, thank you very much for notifying me of my slip up with merging/ moving. I am very much appreciative, and I will take up your offer no doubt in the future. Cheers K-Mac (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Colombian VAs

The AFD closed as no consensus. I decided to be bold and propose their deletion which is what I should have done in the first place. None of these people are notable, they are all BLPs, all unreferenced, and the only reason that they cannot be deleted through any short process now is because I did the batch AFD which everyone who commented at the AFD complained about it being a batch AFD. Just delete the pages and save everyone time because we should not let these unreferenced promotional pieces remain on the project for another five days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start a section on ANI concerning this debacle (no offense, because it is partly my fault).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Jafeluv (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For moving the assassination articles to the consistent usage - it is appreciated - it looked for a moment back that it might not happen - thanks on behalf of the death project - cheers SatuSuro 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Jafeluv (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a relief in the end it was a relatively non controversial issue to sort out - thanks god there is not really a BLP issue for dead persons :( SatuSuro 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio issue

Hey, I was reviewing a list of test elements in articles and I came across Tekumbé. Would you mind if I replaced the old G12 tag above the copyvio template? That article could sit for ages until an admin notices and deletes it for G12 anyways. —LedgendGamer 05:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can tag it if you want, but since the user claims to own the copyright I don't think it should be speedily deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. I'll just have to ignore it. Thanks. —LedgendGamer 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging

Hey Jafeluv, the Colorado governor article, the merging template has been up for a while now mith no debate or opposition. What would your reccomendation be as to merging or keeping it. Also how do I merge the article into the other. All the info has been moved accross, just need to redirect it I suppose. Cheers, K-Mac (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty normal for a merge discussion to have so little participation. It wouldn't hurt getting at least a few opinions on the matter before merging. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Colorado, for example.

To merge an article, you just write the information you want to merge into the new article, but remember to indicate in the edit summary which article the content comes from. When all the needed information has been transferred, the old article can be redirected to the new one. When you redirect it, be sure to add a {{R from merge}} tag so that people know to preserve its edit history. When redirecting, also indicate in the edit summary where you're merging the content (eg. "Merging content into List of Governors of Colorado"). The edit summaries are important because they preserve the information about who originally wrote the content, which is required by our license. For more information, see Help:Merging.

The alternative way is just asking here and I'll do it Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jafeluv, thanks for putting the merge suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Colorado, I have been busy with work and all over the past few days. I am happy for you to merge the articles, I notice there has been no discussion for 5 days now on the talk page so I'll let you go ahead! Thanks, K-Mac (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Nobody seemed to object, even a week after the wikiproject was notified, so I went ahead and merged the article. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Robertson

Hi, and thanks. The talk page needs moving, too:

• Talk:Lisa Robertson (poet) → Talk:Lisa Robertson

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Somehow missed it the first time. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Three-month late follow-up

Sorry this is so late, but I'm following up the comment you made here. I had a note to point you to Category:Redirects by WikiProject, as an example of how some WikiProjects like to categorise their redirects. Probably WP:Categorizing redirects should make it clearer that this is an option, and that have such redirect categories available for readers is not always a good thing, but if WikiProjects want or need to keep track of redirects, that can be a good thing. I say "need" because for fiction-related WikiProjects in particular, there is often a large number of redirects formed after merges took place, and preserving the redirects is necessary to preserve author attribution for the editors who wrote the text that got merged into another article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they can be a good thing, and deleting them outright would be wrong in many cases. However, I like the result we ended up with the Ballet redirects category (see CfD, and a short discussion with the creator). That is, we categorized a part of the redirects in the same categories as the articles (ie. a redirect was included in Category:Ballet dancers if it was from the full name of a ballet dancer, but not if it was a redirect from misspelling, alternative name etc.), and got rid of the redirects category altogether. That way, readers benefit from the redirects (they see them as part of the category, even though there's no article yet and the redirect takes them to a more general article), plus it's easier for the wikiproject to keep track of redirects since all redirects are shown in italics on the category page. I would assume that it's the redirects that could be expected to be expanded into articles that the wikiproject is interested in, and not every {{R from misspelling}}. I agree with you that the option should be clarified on the WP:Categorizing redirects page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Latin American Australian

Thanks for fixing up the article. I raised it to the attention of a few other people. I believe that the person who made the change, Plzppl, is probably a sockpuppet of LatinoAussie (he was created on the day LatinoAussie was blocked). Kransky (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The account was actually created in March 2009, but yeah, its first edit was 30 minutes after the last edit by LatinoAussie. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

do you think you might be able to visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plzppl‎ and add your views? For some reason another user (not an Admin) did not think there was sufficient evidence to link the two. Kransky (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reported at WP:ANI. Feel free to add comments there if I missed something. Jafeluv (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Masterchef

I just noticed that I moved a page where you had relisted the RM about an hour before (Talk:MasterChef#Requested move). What do you think should be done? I'll revert my close and move the page back if you think that's best. Ucucha 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to move it back unless someone contests it, I think. If someone complains about the move (which I doubt), then it can be discussed whether the discussion should be reopened. By the way, nice work with the WP:RM backlog. Jafeluv (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Thanks, you've also been doing some good work there. The backlog has been bad recently, and there are a few contentious and/or complex ones. I hope someone closes that giant "open source" RM soon; it's been sitting there long enough. Ucucha 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles Hits

Hi! I've reverted your unilateral move back to the previous title. Feel free to take it to WP:RM again if you disagree with the earlier discussion. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Did you read my rationale (which I'd already noted when reverting the previous move)? Do you believe that it was appropriate that I wasn't notified of the move request (initiated by the editor whose move I'd previously reverted) and that there actually was consensus for the move (considering the information that was ignored)? —David Levy 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your rationale. You're right that it would have been a good idea for Koavf to notify you of the move request, but their failure to does not invalidate the discussion by any means. Nor does it give you the right to move the article back unilaterally if you disagree with the result. Of course, you can always initiate another move request back to the original title. Jafeluv (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the discussion. As noted above, I'd already expressed the rationale in question (the fact that the lowercase version of the title is the one actually used in the release), which then was ignored on the technicality that it didn't appear on the talk page.

With that information (which I conveyed months ago) factored into the discussion, do you believe that there was consensus for the move to the uppercase version? —David Levy 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The capitalization on the album cover is certainly not the one you moved the article to. The version you moved it to was The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits, while the album title has "THE Chipmunks sing the BeaTLes HiTS". Capitalization is a style issue, and we follow our style guidelines, not those of the subject. So, to answer to your question: yes, I think it was appropriate to move the article even with limited participation, because the current title is clearly the one preferred by our capitalization guidelines. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We override purely stylistic renderings, but it seems clear to me that "the" is an actual part of the title (rendered with extra uppercase letters in its logo). Its placement in small typeface indicates that the intended connotation was "the [Beatles] Hits," not "The Beatles [Hits]."

I'm not asserting that my rationale is irrefutable. I'm pointing out that it shouldn't be excluded from consideration on a technicality (especially given the limited amount of feedback). I don't believe that an impartial administrator (which obviously describes neither of us) would have determined that there was consensus for the move if my input had not been ignored. (I also am quite disappointed that the closing administrator ignored my subsequent message.)

However, please note that I would have self-reverted my move at your request or anyone else's. I'd hoped for agreement that my rationale should have been considered (resulting in no consensus for the title change), but I have no intention of using brute force to get my way (and I'm sorry if that's how my action came across). —David Levy 11:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. I guess it could be interpreted in two different ways. In some cases it's complicated to tell what the intent of the title is. There was a similar problem with the song "Plug In Baby" – is the word "in" part of a phrasal verb (plug in), in which case it should be capitalized, or is it a preposition, in which case it should be uncapitalized? To this day I don't know which would be more correct :P

It's a shame that the closing editor has not replied. I guess we could re-open the discussion, but my personal preference would be the current title, for the simple reason that we write "The Beatles" everywhere else in Wikipedia, not "the Beatles". I do see your side of the matter, though. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet/Imperial Russian emigrants by country

Hi Jafe. I note that on February 19, you archived the cfr and cfm discussions (proposed by me) relating to "Russian/Soviet emigrants by country" and the ancilary "Russian/Imperial Russian emigrants by country" (archived discussion here), stating that result of the discussion was: Keep, based upon consensus. I would be grateful to know on what basis one could claim that there was a consesus to keep. In all, five users took part in the the discussion, of whom only two, Kevlar and myself, entered into any real discussion (135 of the approximate 150 lines of discussion). Kevlar was initially apprehensive about the changes, but after a full and detailed discussion, registered his support. Thereafter two other users stated their opposition, raising issues either already discussed (they did not appear to have read the somewhat lenghthy earlier discussion) and bringing into discussion matters having absolutely no baring on the proposed changes. I replied to both users, who did not respond further (which I believe indicated that the were satisfied with my reply). I then prepared a summary. Thereafter another user opposed the changes, in a two-line comment stating merely that these categories "should be separatedly categorized with some individuals thereby inevitably catted twice - no big deal", but without further reasoning. (He obviously had not read the discussion - if the issue had been merely one of occasional double catting, I would have agreed with him.) The discussion was then closed before I had an opportubity of replying to this last user. I appprecate that as an admin you cannot please all the people all of the time, but I do believe that, in the case, the proposal had been particularly well researched and was well founded, that no justifiable objections had been raised, taking into account all aspect of teh issue, and that there was no consensus to keep. Is there any way of altering your decision or, at least, obtaining further time for the proposal to be discussed? Regards Davshul (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Davshul. I'll try to explain what I meant by my brief closure summary, and why I found that the consensus in that discussion was not to merge the categories.

First of all, Peterkingiron argued for categorizing the people based on their ethnicity, but as you correctly pointed out, the categories are about citizenship, not about ethnicity (the parent is indeed Emigrants by nationality), and as such breaking the categories up by ethnicity would not make sense.

However, as Sussexonian pointed out in the discussion, if immigrants are categorized by the country from which they emigrated, then having separate "Soviet immigrants" and "Russian immigrants" – corresponding to two different sovereign states – is more appropriate than the proposed scheme. Mayumashu only left a brief comment, but agreed that the immigrants from the two countries should be categorized separately.

Your objection to this argument seems to be on practical grounds – ie. that for many people it's difficult to say whether they emigrated from one country or the other, since the sources don't contain the exact immigration date in many cases. I feel this by itself is not strong enough a reason to override the opposition indicated in the discussion, especially since there seems to be no policy-based objection to the status quo. Also note that in merge discussions, the burden of consensus is on the supporters of the merger - "no consensus to keep" is not a valid reason to merge, but "no consensus to merge" is a valid reason to keep.

Evidently a lot of thought went into the proposal, and I admit that the current situation is somewhat problematic due to a lot of people being either miscategorized or categorized based on speculation only. That said, I don't think closing that discussion as anything other than "keep" would have been appropriate based on the participation. So no, I don't think I can alter my decision, but if you want a second opinion, I can ask for an uninvolved editor to review the discussion as a sanity check. Alternatively, if you disagree with my reasoning, you can list the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where uninvolved editors can give their opinions on the correctness of the closure. I do hope that neither will be necessary, though. I'll gladly clarify if I've missed something in the explanation above. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jafe once again. I really must admit to finding the situation extremely frustrating and am unsure how best to proceed. Based upon your explanation, I can see that you felt you had little alternative to closing the discussion with a “keep”. However, surely the strength of the arguments and not merely number of users should be taken into account. I note that most of your writing is about jazz standards, picture a situation where, following time-consuming research and careful consideration by you, you proposed a change of categorization on a jazz related matter, and two users, who had possibly never contributed to an item on jazz, opposed and consequently defeated your proposal. I have been working for some months now on articles, most of which related to immigrants (to Israel and the US), in many instances from Russia/USSR. I also note that none of the objectors offered to help in cleaning up the mess that currently exists regarding these categories, including the need now to open a host of new categories. Could not longer time had been given to discuss the issue? I would be grateful if you would advise if you consider anything practical can be done. If not, I will have to try to live with the situation, and move on. Davshul (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it's frustrating to have a carefully considered proposal rejected (and it has happened to me too). I guess the best course of action would be to either try to categorize the people correctly to the current categories, or try to come up with another solution and start gathering consensus for that. Have you tried asking in a related wikiproject that could help with the task? There's a WikiProject Russia and a WikiProject Soviet Union, for example. Jafeluv (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea, which I believe should go a long way to satisfying all. I intend creating container categories, for example, “Russian and Soviet immigrants to the United States”, which will contain all the relevant subcategoties (Category: Russian immigrants to the United States, Category: Soviet immigrants to the United States, Category: Imperial Russian immigrants to the United States and possibly Category: White Russian immigrants to the United States). Although the container category will provide a receptical where it is impossible to determine in which subcategory or subcategories an article belongs (one of my concerns), it will also focus users on the need to correctly allocate the immigrants among the various alternative subcategories. I believe that this does not go against the spirit of the discussion. I will place an appropriate comment on the discussion page of the principal categories affected. Will there be any problem in creating the new container categories, some of which be have the same name as the rejecting proposed merged categories?.

Also, I would like to add an appropriate banner to the new container categories. The regular banner {{container category}} banner states “Due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages”. Is there someway of also adding something along the lines of “and articles that cannot be categorized among the subcategories”. (The “catdiffuse” banner would not appear appropriate as it indicates that articles should be moved the the subcategories to avoid main category becoming too large, which is not applicable in this case.)

It will still be a major job in reviewing each of the existing articles to recategorize them, where necessary.Davshul (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what's wrong with using the existing container categories like Immigrants to the United States? Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The new container category will be a subcategory of Category:Immigrants to the United States, but will group together relevant categories. Davshul (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific template for the situation, but having {{container category}} on the page already indicates that articles should be moved to the child categories where appropriate. (After all, the ideal situation would be that everything was in the child categories.) And if a category does get really large during the cleanup, you can always add {{catdiffuse}} then. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the clean-up period about which I am concerned. The problem with the {{container category}} banner is that it does not really permit the placing therein of articles that cannot categorized further. For example, I had placed this banner on Category:Immigrants to Israel, but it was removed by another user on 29 December 2009 with the comment "Should not only contain subcats as several articles cannot be accurately put into subcats" - just another of the reasons I made the merger proposals. Davshul (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the immigrants to the United Kingdom as a sample. There were 14, all previously categorized under "Russian". I have created the appropriate additional categories (as subcategories of Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to the United Kingdom) and recategorized, where appropropriate. Please also see the various discussion pages to the categories. I would appreciate your comments. Davshul (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting at WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Soviet Union to see what they think. Jafeluv (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Plzppl is back

I think he is operating under Gtfalcon, based on the choice of articles he has chosen to edit (including Latin American Australian. Gtafalcon has also created a template "Template:Latino Australians". I have launched an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gtfalcon. Kransky (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so it seems. It's a pretty clear-cut case, so I've blocked the account and tagged it as a suspected sock. The template was an exact duplicate of {{Latin American Australians}}, except for the terminology. Jafeluv (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Subpage cleanup

Thanks for deleting all those user talk subpages. I had just cleaned house, and was wondering if I had to speedy each of these. Somehow you figured out which ones corresponded to the deleted user subpages, which saved me a lot of work. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, if you ever need a similar mass deletion again, you can just post a message on my talk page with a list of pages you want deleted. Same result, but with one edit instead of 20 Jafeluv (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Dorham

I have just responded on User talk:Postdlf - I had meant to post something to you to see if we could have a position to move forward on. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for note on my talk page, I do accept that the merging the two categories could be controversial, but I am more than happy to discuss it with you and make a proposal - I am sure we can come to an agreement on the matter. Here's list of facts and opinions which you are welcome to dispute, of course. Each relates purely to music writers and NOT lyricists unless specifically referred to.

1. Classical composers could and did often take folk songs and arrange them for orchestra.
2. Since the introduction of copyright acts a song is defined as words and melody i.e. not arrangement.
3. This means that today's arrangers have more in common with classical composers than songwriters.
4. A music writer may write tunes or songs (with or without a collaborator for lyrics) but that does not make any difference to the work done by the music writer as a composer.
5. I think we both agree that it is over categorisation to have music writers in both "songs with music by" and "compositions by"
6. The policy over at the WPSongs project now is that a songwriter who writes either words or music should be in the songwriter cat and NOT in "songs with music by" and "songs with lyrics by"

I'll probably add more as I think about it. Happy to keep the discussion on your page. You are being watched :) --Richhoncho (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay, more centijimbos for me! A quick note on #5: actually, there are three composition categories: "compositions by X" (X wrote the music and there are no lyrics), "songs with music by X" (X wrote the music, someone else wrote the lyrics) and "songs written by X" (X wrote both the music and the lyrics). I'll comment later in more detail. Jafeluv (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, when I looked at the songwriter categories earlier last year they were a mess. It took me a couple of months to sort it out and now I keep trying to add.... For me, if a writer writes words and/or music they should be a "songwriter" irrespective of the contribution on individual songs - but if they only write one part or the other then they should be under the relevant music or lyric section. There are still half=a-dozen duplicates. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So, according to WP:SONGS#Categories, ­Jerome Kern should be listed as a "songwriter" instead of a composer, because he—in addition to composing a couple hundred songs—wrote the lyrics to this one? Whoah! Jafeluv (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Better than 2 categories with only one entry in one of them? And... the text in the article generally clarifies anyway. But, I have no problem with a couple exceptions i.e. Johnny Mercer who although primarily known as a lyricist, wrote not only words and music, but on at least one occasion wrote music for somebody else's words! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that for someone who sometimes wrote the music and sometimes the lyrics, we should have both a composer and a lyricist category. Even if one of them ends up being small. Jafeluv (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So a writer who writes both the melody line and the words to the same songs could/would also have 2 categories as well (which is something I found when I started on the songwriter cats)? I'll take on board and think about your comments below. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on your points above:

1. Probably correct, although I don't see a clear relevance to the categorization issue.
2. Correct.
3. How is this relevant?
4. Whether or not the composition has lyrics doesn't make the work any different per se, although there is a big difference between writing a classical composition and a three-chord blues or rock song. This is why I believe the folks at the classical music project would object to merging all composer categories into one.
5. Agreed. I think the problem is the use of the word "song" to mean "a piece of music" when the term by strict interpretation does not include instrumentals. We don't seem to have a good word for referring to a piece of popular music in English – "tune" is too colloquial and not as common, and "composition" (while correct) is more commonly used to refer to classical music.
6. I think the optimal situation would be categorizing pieces of music by 1) who composed the music and 2) who wrote the lyrics. Currently we have four different categories to convey that information to the reader, when clearly two would be sufficient. But then again, that would mix pop songs with classical compositions (which WP:CM people won't accept) and prevent the use of "song" when referring to composer categories (which i figure WP:SONGS would object to). Jafeluv (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am posting this here and now because it muddies the waters somewhat. Category:Songs by composer was merged into Category:Songs by songwriter and then another editor recreated the category and I have even added a few to it myself. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vexi Salmi

Hi Jafe, I wonder if you can clarify a couple of things for me related to the Finnish lyricist Vexi Salmi? We have a great portrait of Salmi that I'm going to nominate at WP:FPC, but I noticed that his article is a stub and unreferenced. Most of the references I can find are in Finnish. I've google translated them and the Finnish article, but I'm still having trouble making sense of it. Is he a record producer/does he own a record label? Is he still writing lyrics or was there a point at which he abandoned that career? Was he in a 2007 film/television programme called Rahvaan Ruuneperi (and is it worth mentioning)?

There's plenty of content for a 5x expansion and a DYK, but my lack of Finnish is going to cause me some trouble!

I'd appreciate your input, but it's okay if you're not interested, :) Thanks, Maedin\^talk 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's a nice picture. Based on this source, Salmi worked as a producer as well as a lyricist, and also led his own record company, Levytuottajat Oy (and later Flamingo Music). However, both companies went bancrupt in 1996. As far as I can tell, he's still writing lyrics. The latest work of his the source mentions is writing lyrics for a 2002 album by Danny. The programme Vexi Salmi – rahvaan ruuneperi (which translates to something like "Vexi Salmi, the working man's Runeberg") was about him, but I'm not sure how much mention that warrants in the article. The sources don't seem to mention it.

You're right that there's plenty of information there for a detailed article. I might take a look later and add something. I'm actually working on translating the article of another important Finnish lyricist, Juha Vainio (which is featured on fiwiki, and just a stub here). I'm pretty busy offwiki right now, though, so I don't know when I'll finish that.

I think the FPC will pass with flying colours, considering that the picture is already featured on Commons. Keep up the good work! Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jafe! The article looks great and I don't think I ever could have worked out that content from the translations. I'll add a bit more because it's about 700 characters short of 5x expansion, and then I'll nominate at DYK for us. So far the only hook which has suggested itself to me is that Salmi's friendship with Goodman started when they were both very young (4 and 3, according to this research paper). If you can think of something better, let me know, :) Here's the featured picture candidacy. Again, thank you for your help! Maedin\^talk 07:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the pronunciation. A recording would be great, now that I think of it, but IPA is a good alternative, :) Maedin\^talk 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a recording would be the best option. Malhonen has done a lot of those, but seems to be pretty inactive since 2008... I might give it a try once I get around to buying a microphone (I've had Skype for ages but still haven't gotten one). By the way, do you think the number of songs Salmi has written would make a good DYK hook? Something like "...that during his career from 1965 to present, Finnish lyricist Vexi Salmi (pictured) has written over four thousand song lyrics, over two thousand of which have been recorded?" (It'll need to be included in the article somewhere, of course). Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great hook, I hadn't picked up from the translations that he'd written quite so much! As a guess, I doubt that most lyricists are that prolific, so it's an interesting fact. Not that you need the advice, but if you're looking into buying a microphone, then I recommend one of the Logitech USB headsets. I've used mine for 4+ years, never had any trouble with it and always had good audio quality, still in good nick. There are loads of different kinds available, but I prefer the lighter, less bulky, less expensive ones; otherwise you feel like you've got a brace on your head after 10 minutes, :) Maedin\^talk 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Agreed about the brace on the head :P I just got new headphones, though, so I'll try to find a microphone that comes separately. As for how prolific the guy was, that's one recorded song every week for 45 years (and that's only counting unique songs, not re-recordings)! I've now added the number to the article, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could have taken time to think about the maths before blithely saying something dull like "I guess...that's prolific", ;-) My excuse is that I'm at work and was thinking about looking busy at the time! Maedin\^talk 11:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe According to my calculations, I think we're now officially past the 5x expansion limit \o/ Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! Really good work, thank you, you're ace, :D Maedin\^talk 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

nom. Please make any changes you want. Maedin\^talk 18:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

songs, compostions & misc...

Bearing in mind our unfinished conversation I thought you might like a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13 --Richhoncho (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your assistance here is tremendously appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The kitty made me do it :P Jafeluv (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay! I used my time productively! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since we need more admins doing copyright work, I know someone who should be nominated for adminship. It's already been 9 months since his last try, and that one failed because of copyright issues, which he has been working on actively for a while now. A nomination now would be very likely to pass, thus resulting in getting another admin working on copyright issues. Jafeluv (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't do a lot at RfA (by which I mean "hardly any at all"), but I'm always interested in hearing more about potentials. But if you're talking perchance about User:Theleftorium, I have my eye on him and would be thrilled to co-nom when and if he decides he wants to go for it. :) If he doesn't need me to co-nom, I expect to be an enthusiastic supporter. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew you'd know who I was talking about :P Let's hear what he thinks. Jafeluv (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

His page is on my watchlist, so I'll see his response. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Still too much real life, it seems. Can't say I blame him; I don't know about you, but I found the whole RfA experience pretty consuming! Soon, maybe. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully! I actually got off pretty easy in my RfA, but you're right that it can be a real farce sometimes. I don't think TL will have any problems, though. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vexi Salmi

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vexi Salmi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeljko Lelek

I was looking for Zeljko Lelek in connection with Milan Lukic and Visegrad and I find that you've deleted the article on the basis of copyright violation of content at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH site. I'm puzzled, as I presume that legal texts there would be subject to the similar arrangements to those elsewhere, for example Crown copyright in English legal texts and the practice of the International Court for the Former Yugoslavia, where although copyright exists resides with the ICTY they encourage reproduction as long as this is accurate and accompanied by attribution. Was the Zeljko Lelek content subject to any specific copyright restrictions that would have excluded its legitimate reporidction? Opbeith (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean Željko Lelek? (It took me a while to find it without a link.) The website of the prosecutor's office actually confirms unambiguously that material hosted there is subject to copyright and available for non-commercial use only. I don't know what the situation is for copyright of legal documents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I don't think we can ignore the copyright claim based on how things are done in the UK or former Yugoslavia. Do you have a source for the claim that Bosnian legal documents are in the public domain? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The documents are not "in the public domain" as such, that's precisely the point of the copyright notice at the site. Copyright is affirmed but non-commercial use is specifically allowed. Assertion of copyright provides a means of retaining ultimate control over appropriateness of use. In instances like this it does not mean a prohibition on reproduction, otherwise the wording of the copyright notice would be self-contradicting/self-defeating. The notice specifically allows copying, distribution and use of the content. The ICTY who devolve cases to the BiH War Crimes Court were enthusiastic about reproduction of material subject to attribution when I consulted them a couple of years or so ago. I'm e-mailing the BiH court for confirmation but this shouldn't really be necessary. Opbeith (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's license allows commercial use in derivative works, we can't accept "non-commercial use only" licenses. However, if they agree to release the information under a suitable license, then the material could of course be used. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details. Jafeluv (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had given itself the right to make use of our contributions for its own commercial purposes. That's a bit of a surprise. What does this mean? Opbeith (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, so I'm not sure what you mean by "its own" commercial purposes. However, Wikipedia content is licensed under a free license, which means that (with certain exceptions and conditions) it can be reused by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining. That presumably means that material already reproduced anywhere else without a "non-commercial use" copyright notice can be cited but not the original.Opbeith (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, now I see what the misunderstanding was. To clarify: it's okay to use a copyrighted website as a source and cite it in the article, as long as you use your own words instead of copying the original text. The reason the article was deleted was because the original copyrighted text was copied verbatim, which is a copyright violation. Sources don't have to be freely licensed for us to be able to use them as sources. Sorry for not making myself clearer earlier. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And sorry for being a pest! Though I know that someone involved in creating the article was very upset by its deletion, I haven't seen the original article. However there is a problem with legal texts, in that reformulation can easily lead to error, so secondary sources can be tricky. I'd like to try to create a new Lelek article so it seems like it may be a matter of trying to walk a tightrope. Thanks for your explanation. Opbeith (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a new article on the basis of what I've put together at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Opbeith/%C5%BDeljko_Lelek This refers to court documents (not the prosecutor's office documents) only in relation to the acquittal on the decapitation and mother-and-baby murder charges. I have not found the the Appeal Panel's argument clearly reported elsewhere and so I've summarised its explanation in my own words which I think accurately reflect what the court said. As with the copyright issue, I'm prepared to go back and check with the court, but past experience suggests that confirmation will require months of waiting and reminders. If my summary is contentious so be it, but I don't believe it is. Opbeith (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg vs Luxembourgian

Thanks for going ahead with the namechange procedure. You may nevertheless be interested to know that in the List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names, the adjective for Luxembourg is in fact Luxembourg and not Luxembourgian. So there would also have been a case for keeping Category:Luxembourg architecture anyway without having to change all the others. But I agree that there is a certain logic to having the names of categories coincide with the names of articles. So Category:Architecture of Luxembourg would be fine too. -- Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred Thelonious Baker

Hi Jafeluv, I have noticed you added a reference - did you see my copyvio suspicion on Talk:Fred Thelonious Baker? To me, it looks as if almost the entire article should be in {{Cquote}} with the Calyx article as a reference ... Regards,BNutzer (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're absolutely right. How on Earth did I miss that? We probably need to start from scratch with this one. Jafeluv (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Clean version started at User:Jafeluv/Sandbox/Fred T. Baker. Feel free to add to it. Jafeluv (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to continue this thread on the article's talk page for transparency purposes. BNutzer (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I saved your sandbox article again, you will need to delete it again. BNutzer (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I actually kind of wondered whether you'd edit confict if you had an edit window open :) Jafeluv (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please close TfD

Hello, Jafeluv/Archive ... I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Wikipedians dislike monotheistic religions as Delete ... would you please also close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions, which lists the Templates that populated the deleted Categories?

Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{14:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

Hi! I looked at that, but it's still a couple of hours early. I prefer to let things run the full time unless there's an urgency or it's a clear WP:SNOW. I'll get back to it later unless someone does it first. Jafeluv (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy that ... waiting is. :-) — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like NicholasTurnbull beat me to it. Jafeluv (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Another copyvio candidate

Didier Lockwood appears to be a literal copy from http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/musician.php?id=8831 - before adding a template, I thought you might perform another one of your well-proven speedy re-writes. ;) Regards, BNutzer (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there are a lot of these, aren't there? (I was just about to write you to ask for help with Carlos Garnett Maybe we'll get to that later.) It's interesting that the article has stood there since 2005 and nobody has noticed. Since the first revision already contains copy-pasted text, I think it's better to start a clean version at Didier Lockwood/Temp. I need to go soon, but I'll try to find some sources and get a stub in place shortly. Good job locating the copyvio again! Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Page removed

Hi Jafe, I had a page deleted today for duplicate content.

The content was in fact my own that someone else had copied from articlesbase without acknowledging the source in a backlink. I know this because they have included my author bio at the bottom but with backlinks removed.

I have sent the site owner a letter threatening legal action plus DMCA violation notifications to his affiliate partners Clickbank and Google. But this still does not help me prove ownership to Wikipedia.

I tried to find out on the Wikipedia guidelines on claiming original authorship or donating, which I am happy to do, but the guidelines are so like long drawn out legalese with cross referencing that I keep losing the thread.

What do you suggest. I have many articles (hundreds) out there which have been syndicated and reused by others. Many, I am sure without acknowledgement. Just how do I go about claiming original ownership when this happens again.

My project for this quarter was to be adding to Wikipedia in my 2 areas of expertise: herb gardening and public speaking. The same situation will no doubt hit me, even if I rewrite substantially. So how do I resolve it?

Kind regarde, Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrik33 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I guess you mean Wedding Speeches? Let me have a look, and I'll be back to you in a minute. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay... There's an explanation on how to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In short, one way is to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an email address that is somehow linked to the original publication (if you have an email address listed at Articlesbase, that would be fine). In the email, you need to specify that you're willing to release the text under a free license -- there's an example message here that you can use for this. Once the email has been verified by a volunteer, the text can be used in a Wikipedia articles (it will however need to conform to our other policies and guidelines, of course). Also, keep in mind that releasing the text under a free license and posting it on Wikipedia means that, as with all our articles, the text can later be edited by anyone.

I'm going to restore the page and put a copyright notice on it until the permission can be verified. I'll be glad to help if you have further questions regarding the article. Jafeluv (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tune

I'm not keen on the word tune, it feels a little colloquial to me, but I'm not convinced it can really be adequately and elegantly replaced wholesale. Sorry I didn't reply directly, but I'd leave it and we'll see if anyone else picks up on it. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your promotion. I trust that you will now make proper use of your new found powers, and may consider graciously my outstanding request. Or is this task too menial, assignable to User:ClearlyNotSoWhy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he'll get to it as soon as he finishes cleaning my war boots :P Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Digit separator

I came across a template error in List of countries by number of troops where the input was provided with a comma, breaking the use of {{digit separator}} in a copy of {{number of troops}}. I investigated and discovered that {{digit separator}} was manually doing what's already covered by the magic word "formatnum"; e.g. {{formatnum:123456789.0}} produces 123,456,789.0, and {{formatnum:123,456,789.0|R}} produces 123456789.0. I updated {{number of troops}} to use the "formatnum" approach to avoid future errors, and at this point {{digit separator}} has no transclusions. Would you mind if I were to delete it? It doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose, and it seems uncontroversial enough that I don't want to bother with a TfD. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 01:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I remember thinking that there had to be an easier way to do that! Sure, feel free to G7 the template if it's no longer needed. Jafeluv (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Title move

Thanks! Kind of you to take the time. It might have seemed minor, but now it conforms to MOS. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this title move is in reference to National Beer Day....

The citations listed are only half right. The title of the day April 7th has been many things. It was actually called "Brew Years Eve" by the American Brewers association for a while. Nobody had celebrated it in several years and when I contacted the Brewers Association for information, they told me they were no longer celebrating the holiday as it was too close to craft ale week. I can proved many citations that name the holiday "National Beer Day" however this wiki won't allow me to use those sites. The name change to "New Beer's Eve" is ridiculous and unfounded at best especially since your wiki article has April 6th list as New Beer's Eve (which is correct). Why would you name April 7th "New Beer's Eve" when it is the day we are celebrating the return of beer to the US. New beer's eve should be the day before (April 6th). Think about it....December 31st...New Year's Eve. The night before the holiday. December 24th....Christmas Eve...the day before the holiday. All this to sum up that April 7th is and should continue to be called "National Beer Day". April 6th is New Beer's Eve. Do yourselves a favor and do a google search next time. See how many times April 7th comes up as "National Beer Day" and how many times it comes up "New Beer's Eve". The article that has the name wrong should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSmith14607 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the above user was referring to another page move (I think Graphic Artists Guild). Anyway, the move you talk about received no objections in 11 days, so I moved it based on the nominator's rationale. Feel free to file a new move request if you feel that the new title is inaccurate. Jafeluv (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Graphical MUDs

Hi, Jafeluv. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion (here) that "the terms aren't quite as synonymous as stated in the nomination." There was really only one person arguing for that position and I don't see that he really made it very convincing. Powers ^T 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Powers. What I meant by my rationale was that both you and chaos5023 seemed to agree that there were some games that are called graphical MUDs but never MMORPGs, and the other way around. Your disagreement seemed to be whether the distinction was only because the newer term wasn't invented yet when the first MMORPGs came out. Nobody seemed to have a source to prove this either way. What especially convinced me was the argument that not all games categorized as graphical MUDs would even fit the definition of "massively multiplayer", in which case it would be inappropriate to categorize them as massively multiplayer online role-playing games. That's why I decided on a "keep" closure (although a "no consensus" would have had basically the same result). Jafeluv (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is something wrong

In the merge part of the template you added here [1], I think its supposed to be a link but it shows as: "for its talk page, see [[Talk:Talk:Greater Lebanon/old revisions|here]]." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. I had to change the template for the link to work. I guess it wasn't designed for pages in the talk namespace. Jafeluv (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Heya, mind if I...?

Heya, mind if I work on updating File:RfA edit count chart.png? It'll take me a while, but I think I can update it. I just wanted to make sure that was ok with you, seeing as you're the image creator. Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead :) More up-to-date information is always good. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Piruthivirajan

I have unblocked Piruthivirajan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per my unblock message on their talk page. I have no problem with you re-blocking without any discussion with me, if there isn't any improvement in editing behaviour. As this is FYI only, please let me know on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further. Peter 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jafeluv (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hey Jafe-

My name is Ian Blyth and I'm the Director of Marketing for Simio, a simulation software company in Sewickley, Pa. I'm trying to get a handle on Simio's SEO activities and I've seen here that Simio's page has been deleted twice. The reasoning is here:

02:45, 4 April 2010 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Simio" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 02:55, 5 January 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Simio" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Can you give me some indication as to what was unambiguous advertising or promotion? The page simply explained who we are, what we do and what makes us unique. It seems strange to allow some companies to have pages but not others.

Any direction would help me rewrite the content for a page that fit the standards. Thanks so much.

Ian Blyth Director of Marketing Simio iblyth@simio.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblyth (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ian. The reason why your page was deleted was because it was indeed written in a promotional way, using phrases like "delivering leading edge solutions", "highly experienced", "very talented team", "provide you with the best possible...", etc. One of our core policies is neutral point of view, which means that articles should neutrally reflect the coverage of third-party published sources covering the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement or promotion, and when writing about your own company it's very difficult if not impossible to write in a neutral way even if your sole purpose is not advertisement per se. That's why we generally expect the articles to be written by someone not closely associated with the subject – see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for further information. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jafe-

Thanks for the input and I agree, that text is pretty promotional. I'll work to massage the text and weed out the promotional content. Thanks again for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblyth (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Faster Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Faster Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Sonny munroe

I see that you removed this request from the list of requested moves, but it doesn't look like the move was done. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems I forgot to click "submit" on that one...  Done now. Thanks for noticing. Jafeluv (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem -- thanks for taking care of it! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Compass-2

With no disrespect intended I would like to audit your deletion of the article Compass-2. "01:47, June 27, 2010 Jafeluv (talk | contribs) deleted "Compass-2" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.raumfahrt.fh-aachen.de/compass2/)" Note the article may have been moved from COMPASS-2.

In short, there are a confusingly large number of satellites past, present, and future that use the "Compass" or "COMPASS" name. My particular interest today is in a Russian spacecraft mission launched in 2006, known fully as the "Complex Orbital Magneto-Plasma Autonomous Small Satellite". This satellite is well documented in both NASA and Russian sources. I want COMPASS-2 to cover that mission. See http://compass.izmiran.ru/ for details. I don't want to redo work already done by another editor, though! Can you show that the deleted material is copyright infringing? (sdsds - talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I nominated this one. If I remember correctly, it was basically a copy-and-paste job. I think it was an Indian spacecraft. If you're talking about the same Russian spacecraft I think you are, I would suggest that you use the transliterated spelling Kompass-2, which is more commonly used when referring to it. The acronym still works out somehow, in the same way that Koronas does. --GW… 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, correction, it is a German spacecraft. --GW… 23:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi sdsds. As GW points out above, the Compass-2 article was about a German satellite described at this page, and was indeed a straightforward copy-paste of the contents of that page. I don't know if there is any relation to the Russian spacecraft you mention except the name. If you want to write an article on the Russian satellite, you can just create the page at Compass-2 or other descriptive title. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy Jackson (musician) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Randy Jackson (musician). Since you had some involvement with the Randy Jackson (musician) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

hello!

Sorry if my words are harsh in the Kochi talk page, didn't mean to offend anyone huhu, sincerely, kotakkasut 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. Just remember that we're all volunteers here :) Jafeluv (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in closing the discussion too =) kotakkasut 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy roller

Hi Jafe. You helped out by moving the page Holy Roller to Holy roller after closing a consensus discussion. Since then, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has come along and undone your action. He did not add anything to the talk page, but simply said his action was "per references". I reverted his action and rebutted his claims on the article's talk page. He has now redone his action, still with no discussion, and furthermore has edited the redirect so that only an admin can undo his actions. I am hoping you can come back and help out here. I have posted to his talk page regarding his behavior, but an admin is needed at least to undo his action if not to reinforce the point regarding his behavior. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to move war over it since there's no clear consensus anymore, but I've listed the article at WP:RM again for more input. Hopefully you can reach some sort of agreement on the matter. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very fair. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Chelene Nightingale

Hello I was wondering about trying to recreate a page for Chelene Nightingale and was wondering what I could do to make an article that won't get deleted, I do have sources that I will cite. BenW (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi BenW. What you can do is make sure that the person meets our notability guidelines, particularly WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. As you can see in the previous deletion discussion, in April she wasn't considered to meet the inclusion criteria based on those guidelines. If you think things have changed and you have reliable sources to show that she meets the guideline, you can try creating the article at Chelene Nightingale. You may want to consider developing the article in your userpage first (eg. User:BenW/Chelene Nightingale), and moving it to the main namespace once you think it's ready. Jafeluv (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Claude Alvin Villee, Jr.

I have tried my best to reword the original article.... So, I think I need help.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the article was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems today so there's still 7 days time to reword the content before the article is consireded for deletion. I'll try to help out later, and sometimes WP:CP contributors reword things themselves if they feel that the page is still too close to the original. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A clean version has been started here. Feel free to expand, but remember not to copy any material directly. Jafeluv (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Freddie Freeloader

The article Freddie Freeloader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs (and tracks) generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Thanks for the advice about closing the Avatar discussion. However, I have been trying to move the page, and it says I need an admin to do that. Since you are an admin, could you make the move for me? Thanks! Oldag07 (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Jafeluv (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consequences of recent move

In the shuffle, the now-redirect Can't Take That Away From Me and its talk page have lost their prior history, documenting the persistent efforts of Lilbadboy312 to inject non-notable material, and to convert the redirect into an article so that "his content" wouldn't be reverted. I'm not contesting the renaming per MOS at all, just noting the apparent loss of history.

The result of the previous(old) flurry of activity was a redirect pointing(incorrectly) to JoJo (singer), and protected. Lilbadboy312 requested, using {{helper}} on the redirect's talk page that the redirect be unprotected "so he could edit it." Took a bit to figure it out. Ultimately I asked an admin to unprotect & redirect to the correct article without loss of history, and that happened.

A few minutes after that, I requested that the redirect be protected again, because of Lilbadboy312's persistence to edit the redirect. I can send you the IRC transcripts.

Now that the history's gone, there's no evidence of that visible to me. You can probably see it, and understand why the redirect should at least be again permanently protected, if not have its history restored. --Lexein (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lexein. I've undeleted the history and moved it under the redirect Can't Take That Away From Me. It's a little confusing now since the page was under a slightly different name when the edits took place, but at least the history can now be viewed by anyone. Furthermore, I remember going through the history when I deleted the page, but just in case I missed any GFDL-eligible edits that were merged it's better to have the history visible. The redirect is now protected against recreation like it was before the move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rockin'! Yeah, that whole series of incidents was confusing - I left out the part where it took 3 of us the better part of an hour to really sort it out. --Lexein (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Vote

Help us come to a proper consensus and vote Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F. Thank you. 200.21.15.109 (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bombshell (Transformers)

I know the article Bombshell (Transformers) was closed for a nomination for deletion with a "Merge" result because it lacked third party sources. I found a magazine article talking about him and Boll Weevils (the author seemed to think he was a boll weevil, not a rhinosaurus beetle), but still, it's coverage in a magazine. That sorta disputed the arguement made in the delete votes that he has no third party coverage right? Mathewignash (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for the late response. If you think the new information would have affected the outcome of the discussion, I recommend starting a deletion review to decide whether to overturn the AfD result. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

About Dasmarinas City

Hello Sir! I was just wondering, why did the article Dasmarinas City got its "city" part in its link removed? Why was the move done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balthier54 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Balthier, the move of Dasmariñas City was requested at Talk:Tacloban. A wider discussion about Philippine citiy names can be found at task force LGU's talk page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So it was for simplicity. I now understand. Thank you sir and more power! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balthier54 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Customer relationship management (CRM)

I'm sorry to see you closed this delete, despite my clear statement that it is used. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Sorry that it didn't go your way, but I don't think the discussion could have been closed any other way. The consensus was clearly in favour of deletion in that case. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I really don't care about the redirects, but the point is simply that a clear and compelling, undisputed case for keeping that one was demonstrated. The !votes are (or should be) irrelevant in face of compelling argument. Rich Farmbrough, 08:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

I agree that discussions should decided on arguments and not mere vote counts. I didn't find the case for keeping Customer relationship management (CRM) that compelling, though – someone even argued that it could actually be confusing for the reader, and apart from you the general opinion seemed to be that it was unuseful at best. A no consensus closure might have been defensible, although I don't think a DRV would overturn it at this point... I don't really care much either way, but that's how I saw the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for editing the images used in Angels Fall First: Planetstorm and making them compliant to wiki's rules. :) --Astepintooblivion (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help :) It was Sreejithk2000 who did the actual rescaling, though. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

CFR

Hi Jafulev - could I get you to have another look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12#Category:Former sports venues in the United States, please? Grutness...wha? 10:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Left another comment there. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hem Chander Vikramaditya‎

Thanks for moving the article to Hemu. Please move the corresponding talk too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice that there was already something on the target talk page.  Done now. Jafeluv (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Genbukan

Dear Jalujev!

Thank you for the information.

Do you speak finish? If so we can carry on this conversation in Finish, but until then I will write in English. 

First of all we get this deletation very siriously. Because there are possibilities that it has been made porpously. I read the conversation about Shot Tanemuras deletion and it is very sad to read. So that our Soke and our teacher hasn't get his menkyo kaidensa etc. And his first Menkyo Kaidens have not been got in the 21-year old. First of all there are non.japanese person, who has made these allegations. And he can't have any information about true japanese koryu arts, because he is european or American etc. So only japanese people who has get the education for these arts are capable to say something like that. Anyway, if we will do this kind of fight in Wikipedia, where and how we have to start it? The Wikipeadia is too difficult to learn very fast and I can't even know how to send emails here. But is it okay that there will be open one site where have to do this fight and if you will then decide if its enough or not. And what kind of information you are expectining to get?

Yours

Miska —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiskaVuorio (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Genbukan deletion, I'd like to discuss why and how it can be reversed, thank you for your time. Fraterm (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, see here for some comments about that. The article is currently userfied at User:MiskaVuorio/Genbukan. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge procedure

Hi. I see you performed the merge of No Smoking into No smoking that I proposed. But it seems you didn't follow the merge procedure at WP:MERGE#Performing the merger. Shouldn't that procedure be followed? --Mepolypse (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should (and that's what I normally do). I didn't think it would matter very much in this case since the merger was simply copying an interwiki link and one dab page entry, but on second thought there's no harm in tagging the page correctly so that edit history is preserved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The reason I didn't just merge them myself is that I have no experience with merges, and the merge instructions looked a bit intimidating. --Mepolypse (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it. The important thing is that the edit histories of both pages are linked somehow (which our license requires), and the "correct" procedure is just a couple of different ways to ensure that happens. Many people have no clue about the existence of {{R from merge}} even if they've been editing for years, which is why every time before deleting a redirect admins have to make sure there's no merged content in the history. Jafeluv (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Hi! Regarding Talk:University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide#Relisted move discussion

• Can you tell me, what is the process to request an admin to move a page (because I can't perform the move myself)?
• I'm of the (no doubt biassed) opinion that there is consensus to move University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide to Park 12. Do you agree with my assessment?
  • If so, please close the discussion, and while you are there, could you perform the move please?
  • If not, please advise what further action is required.

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The usual process is either to ask an admin directly on their talk page or to post in the "uncontroversial" section at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If it's just a redirect that's preventing the move, you could also tag it for deletion with {{db-move}} and move the page yourself once an admin comes along and deletes the redirect.

I didn't really see a consensus either way between the titles Park 12 and University Oval, Adelaide, so I relisted that one to get more input on the matter. Of course, that could be speedily closed if everyone agrees on the proposed name (although I would prefer to keep it up for at least a few days to be sure). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks in arrears!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gambia

Convenience links: move request, CFD discussion.

I've just reversed your good faith move of list of birds of The Gambia. The country is The Gambia, not Gambia, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia article is a mess, try this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The move was discussed at CFD, then listed for another week at RM with no objections. Did you look at the move request which I linked in the move summary? This was by no means the only page that was renamed after the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's brilliant, country name changed by Wikipedia vote, make sure you let The British High Commission and the US embassy know they have got it wrong (I checked The Gambia's stamp in my passport too, but unfortunately that capped everything). This is the sort of thing that maintains Wikipedia's high standards of scholarship! I won't revert again, because too much effort has been wasted on this already. I know, let's vote to make it it the "united states", instead of "United States" -or don't we do this for big countries? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there has been plenty of discussion on country names on Wikipedia. Should we use Burma or Myanmar? Côte d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast? Taiwan or Republic of China? There's even been an arbitration case for determining how to name a country article. It's not as straightforward as you seem to think in all cases, although for smaller countries it's unfortunately difficult to get enough people to participate in the discussions. (By the way, the change was not between The Gambia and Gambia, but between The Gambia and the Gambia.) If you feel the current name is incorrect, I suggest bringing it up on the article talk page again. I don't think it's a wasted effort at all trying to come to an agreement about the spelling of a country name, small or not. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except that this vote has already been taken multiple times, always with the vote falling on the "keep it The Gambia" side, and yet folks continue to badger for it to be changed (and in this case succeeded)! So "bringing it up again" seems pretty pointless, since there are a fair number of people with nothing better to do, who keep arguing it should be changed to be incorrect. Only on Wikipedia... MeegsC | Talk 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi MeegsC. Yes, there are move proposals that come up every now and then and nobody seems to be satisfied with a compromise. And it's obvious that eventually people get tired of presenting the same arguments every time. However, I can't really take into account objections that are never raised (unless the nomination is obviously disruptive, of course). The CFD was closed as consensus to move by a different editor, and since there were no objections after seven days my options were limited to closing it as move and relisting the discussion for another week. Considering that there had already been a 13-day CFD discussion I didn't think it necessary to relist. (In general I think it's pointless that we even have to have the same discussions in two places, once for categories and another time for articles.) (Continued below) Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with MeegsC. As the main editor to this article , was MeegsC informed of this discussion? The debate seems to have been largely based on ill-informed views about English capitalisation, rather than actually checking any facts with people who should know, like the Banjul-based embassies and high commissions above. I wouldn't have minded so much if the proposed move had been to "Gambia", which is almost forgiveable, it's the daft change to "the Gambia" which really irks. Sorry if you are taking all the flak for this, but, well, you were the instrument of this "facts by vote" farrago. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the notifications, I don't see one in Talk:List of birds of The Gambia although it was part of the nomination. Talk:The Gambia was notified, as were Talk:Politics of The Gambia, Talk:Economy of The Gambia, Talk:Demographics of The Gambia etc., but apparently the bot didn't post notifications to all the pages that were included. I think this is due to a technical limitation with the template.

So the main point seems to be that there was no consensus to rename the articles to use the Gambia instead of The Gambia. I'm going to have to think about how to proceed here... I'll inform the editor who closed the CFD about this to see what they think. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(Dana boomer's response here.) Okay, how about this: We start an RfC at Talk:The Gambia about the proper way to refer to the country, and invite everyone to present their point of view there. This would mean notifying at least the talk pages of all pages involved (some of which were missed last time) and all people who participated in the previous move discussion. Informing WikiProject Gambia probably wouldn't hurt, although that project seems to be inactive. If there's consensus for either option in the RfC, we'll use that. If there's no clear consensus, we'll move the articles back to the status quo ante (since that would mean that there was no consensus to make the change in the first place). This may seem like a lot of hassle for nothing, but I don't feel I could unilaterally reverse the outcome of a good-faith CFD without going through DRV first. Jafeluv (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to start the RfC on the Talk:The Gambia page, or would you like one of us to? Once it's added, it would be good to notify ALL the projects with affected articles, rather than just the one or two that got asked last time. The Gambia was not on my watch list (though it is now, thanks to this fiasco), so I never heard about the move the last time. MeegsC | Talk 03:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC started here. Jafeluv (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified the talk pages of all moved pages (except for categories), the people that participated in the move discussions, as well as WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Gambia. Feel free to inform interested parties if there's someone I missed. Jafeluv (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jafeluv... MeegsC | Talk 12:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 in jazz

Hi, any thoughts on this? Redirect to your lists of jazz standards or fill out with history?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting to the lists of jazz standards would be wrong, since "<year> in jazz" covers so much more than just the standards written in that year. Creating "<decade> in jazz" articles could be an improvement (and certainly a better alternative than deletion), although I'm not convinced that duplicating existing content is the way to go there. I might post an opinion in the AfD later. Jafeluv (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway

"If the situation changes by 2397, nothing's stopping us from moving the pages then." - I admire your optimism :) - Station1 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What I should have said is that I'll personally move it back in 2397 if the situation has changed then :P Jafeluv (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you move a talk page?

Can you move Talk:Vogler (mountain range) to Talk:Vogler? It got left behind in an earlier RM execution. Talk:Vogler is a redirect without a history. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, apparently forgot to untick the "create redirect" box when I moved the dab page. Done now. Jafeluv (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jazzy boy boy

Hey amigo. *Sorry* for not crediting you for the "robbery" of your list standards lists but I needed some initial material to work off to try to save these articles from deletion/merging and to build upon them like 1924 in jazz. I hadn't realised initially in the AFD you were the one who had written those lists and done a brilliant job in researching them and promoting to FA. I would like nothing more than to have your support as an expert jazz writer and any other members of WP:Jazz to build a detailed historical guide to jazz by year. I think we clearly both share a love of jazz.... I honestly think that it will be possible and very important for the coverage of jazz to write these articles. I think your decade lists are perfectly appropriate but I also think it is approrpriate to list the standards in the year articles. Rather I would suggest that maybe it is revised either expanded upon or condensed in the year pages to avoid it being an exact copy. What do you think? WOuld you be interested in writing articles about jazz history for each year? Discussion resumed at Talk:Jazz/Years in Jazz...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment there. Jafeluv (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ive started When My Sugar Walks Down the Street. Is this missing from your list?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is. I'll add it to the list later unless you beat me to it. Wasn't it composed by Jimmy McHugh, though? Jafeluv (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I dunno, I do hope you can clear that one up! I'll probably start 1921 in jazz and 1923 in jazz tomorrow... Can you help to expand the years in due course? I think its an opportunity to "pen" jazz history in detail, who knows, we may even see some articles of the quality of the standard articles. I think they will eventually prove very valuable.... The decade articles too could be developed to cover history in detail for a given decade and would compliment your lists of standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shocking. We were even missing Blues for Alice!! Do you have any further info on it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Church AFD

Hi jafeluv, would you please read my article "Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia" and help me figure out what i should do to keep it up here? some very rude admins. are HARASSING me and trying to taking it down. Vscheer94 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The link you need is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Avenue_Church_of_Christ_Valdosta,_Georgia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ditzy Scene cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ditzy Scene cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerhard Schröder

Hello - would you mind reopening the move request for Gerhard Schröder? It seemed to me that the discussion was still ongoing, with several posts each day. If it's against the rules, then that's fine, but it just seemed a little early to close it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Move requests are usually closed after seven days, although there's a rather large backlog now and complicated cases can take much longer than that. It didn't seem to me that relisting the discussion for another week would have helped to gain consensus in either direction. If you feel it needs more time, feel free to revert the closure and relist the discussion (instructions here). You can point to this discussion if someone objects on procedural grounds :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I relisted it - likely in vain, as you suggest. Another week of discussion can't hurt, though, can it...? Dohn joe (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it can't. In the worst case there's no consensus after one more week, and there's no harm done. (Well, actually that's not the worst case, but speculating on that further would be a WP:BEANS violation.) Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how cryptic.... And thanks for the small help. WP can be tough for the non-programmers sometimes.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

San Diego neighborhoods

Thank you very much for moving all those San Diego neighborhoods. I'm sure that was a lot of work. Now for the rest of us to get busy simplifying all those wikilinks!

However, there's a problem: The articles you moved are only half of the neighborhoods of San Diego. The other half are listed at Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California, where Born2cycle had made a similar request last month, this time involving neighborhoods that may not require disambiguation. The discussion about disambiguation was inconclusive, but again, most people seemed to support eliminating "California" from the titles. (The same was done for the "Los Angeles" neighborhoods earlier this year, see Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles.) Would you consider making the same move (removing "California") for the other San Diego articles as well? Right now half of the San Diego neighborhoods are in the format Ocean Beach, San Diego while the other half are in the format Point Loma, San Diego, California - they should probably all be handled the same. Thanks so much! --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, I'm aware of the second request, but I haven't looked at it in detail. However, I think the current inconsistency will be resolved one way or the other when that one is closed -- whether it's "X, San Diego" or just X, there's clearly not much support to retaining the "California" part. Jafeluv (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the other one might not get closed, or may not be on anyone's agenda to close. That discussion has been idle for a month, partly because the debate about disambiguation was inconclusive, and partly because user Will Beback had said the discussion should be put on "hold". My thought was that even though the disambiguation issue is unresolved, the "California" issue is pretty much settled and could be enacted now. However, I'm sure you have plenty else to do! Happy holidays! --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. It hasn't been put on hold or anything, though -- it's right there at the bottom of the backlog :) Wall-of-text discussions tend to stay in the backlog a bit longer since they're more complicated to close and take more time to evaluate. Someone will get to it sooner or later :) I think it's better to get the disambiguation issue resolved instead of hastily moving a bunch of pages that may have to be moved again later. Happy holidays to you as well! Jafeluv (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They Didn't Believe Me by Jerome Kern and Herbert Reynolds

Hi Jafe - I hope this message is not a bother to you. I hope it is of your concern. I am not yet familiar with this part of wikipedia, but I know that you write about standard songs. The article about 'They Didn't Believe Me' by Jerome Kern and Herbert Reynolds mentions that Charlie Parker has recorded the song. It is true that there is a recording from Trade Winds Club, Inglewood, California made on June 16th, 1952, but that recording is to my knowledge not a commercial recording, and therefore can not be named as a recording by Charlie Parker. It's a recording of Charlie Parker. I believe that this is a big difference. I have unsuccesfully tried to find other recordings by Charlie Parker of the song. A recording by Frank Sinatra of course exists, but probably like the one by Parker it's a non-commercial live recording? When mentioning who has recorded a song it may be an idea to include information on when the recording was made and on which label. I have listened to these artists for more than twenty years. If I am wrong or this is not your concern, please excuse me. Birgerkkarlsson (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I can't see anything wrong with saying "the song has been recorded by X" even if X only made a non-commercial live recording, to be honest. However, it's certainly possible to specify the type and date of the recording in the article: You could say something like "Amongst the artist who have recorded it have been X, Y and Z. Charlie Parker also recorded the song in 1952 in..." etc. Jafeluv (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File:New20pesosa.jpg

I requested the image File:New20pesosa.jpg to be deleted because it should have been deleted as a part of this deletion request as it seems to be illegal under Dominican law to reproduce currency. Henri Watson (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Reproducing currency (counterfeiting) is illegal in many countries, but simply showing a picture of a banknote is not counterfeiting. The reason the file was removed from Commons was not the anti-couterfeiting law but the fact that there was no evidence that the notes were not copyrighted in the Dominican Republic. Jafeluv (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I am the sole author of the image, I'd rather not risk interpretation of the law and would rather have the image deleted with the CSD G7. Henri Watson (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Would it be okay for you if I reupload the file under my own name and remove your name from the list of uploaders? Jafeluv (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, the thing is the Dominican peso article has already lost a lot since all of the images (except this one) have been pulled. Hope you had a Merry Christmas! Henri Watson (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)